Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PRESTON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Clause 6

PROVISIONS AFFECTING DOCK LABOUR

Amendment made: page 5, lines 4 and 5, leave out
(Regulation of Employment) Order 1947
and insert
Employment Scheme 1967".—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Schedule

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Amendment made: page 10, line 4, at end insert—
In Schedule 2, the words "P. The Port of Preston:"."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Property Services Agency

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many employees of the Property Services Agency have been required to resign for professional incompetence in the past five years.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): Fourteen staff who failed to meet accepted standards of efficiency have been retired. The services of another 41 have been terminated for failing to reach the required standard during probation.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Can he tell us whether included in that number there were any members of that splendid organisation responsible for spending £93,000 of taxpayers' money on providing the Welsh Office with pot plants? If not, does he agree that on the Admiral Byng principle there is little prospect of getting much efficiency out of that organisation in future?

Mr. Finsberg: I remind my hon. Friend that that was part of a consultant's design carried out and finally executed under the Labour Administration. My right hon. Friend and I have made it plain that we wish to see much tighter financial control over all projects.

House Building

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many housing starts were made in the public sector during the months of April, May and June.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): The figures for June are not yet available. The provisional, seasonally adjusted, figures for April and May show that there were 5,300 public sector starts in that period in England.

Mr. Ross: Does the Minister agree that that is an abysmal figure when one considers the problems of those who need housing? Will he examine the areas under greatest stress and provide the necessary resources for authorities with growing waiting lists to provide houses for those who need but cannot afford to purchase them and are being priced out of the private rented sector?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the system of allocation is as far as possible directed towards authorities with the greatest need. There is very careful analysis as to the basis of the allocation. I certainly cannot accept that there is not scope for authorities to do more by making use of the substantial number of low-cost home ownership initiatives that we have introduced and of the private rented sector, which would be materially helped if the Opposition would withdraw their repeal commitment on shorthold.

Mr. Dover: Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities would get better value for money by using their existing housing stock and, in particular, reducing the number of voids in that housing stock?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is a later question on empty dwellings. He will know that we have introduced a substantial range of measures to assist local authorities to reduce the number of empty dwellings.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is not the Minister's policy virtually ending all council house building, except for the elderly and the disabled? What does he propose to do for the other families, comprising 45 per cent. of the population, who cannot afford to buy, even with the aid of a mortgage, and whose prospects are daily worsened by the Government?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in addition to the basic allocation, we have given authorities substantial scope for increasing their capital allocations by the use of capital receipts. He will see, for example, from the housing capital receipts which arose in the course of last year that in many constituencies represented by Labour Members who complain about the insufficiency of housing allocation money capital receipts were nil, whereas other authorities had capital receipts last year of £1 million and more which can now be used for the housing capital programme.

Mr. Kaufman: Will the hon. Gentleman place before the House the calculations upon which the Secretary of State based his statement to the Housing Consultative Council on 15 June that it is far cheaper in public expenditure terms to keep building workers on the dole? Does he accept that, in the light of the disgraceful figures that he has announced today, that statement by the


Secretary of State is particularly obscene to the 1·2 million people on council house waiting lists and the 25 per cent. of building workers who are on the dole?

Mr. Stanley: On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, if he will table a specific question we shall endeavour to assist him. I revert to what I said previously, however. There is substantial scope for local authorities to increase their allocations through the use of capital receipts.
The right hon. Gentleman represents a North-West constituency. The striking thing about the North-West is that those few authorities—which, incidentally, include Manchester—that reported zero housing capital receipts last year are losing substantially as a result of a self-imposed cut in their housing programmes through their failure to sell council houses.

Local Authorities (Services)

Mr. Murphy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage local councils to study the possibility of privatising local services such as refuse disposal and road sweeping.

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment in what way he is encouraging local authorities to consider the privatisation of services.

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): We consistently stress the importance of obtaining value for money in every local authority service and the need to investigate the most satisfactory means of providing these services, including privatisation. To provide more information about this, an independent study, commissioned by us, of different methods employed and charges made for a range of local authority environmental services in selected local authorities in England will be published shortly.

Mr. Murphy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that there are considerable advantages, such as reduced costs and increased efficiency, for the ratepayers by way of privatisation and that this has been shown in the excellent example of Southend? Is it not therefore important for the Government to emphasise how valuable that can be for the ratepayers?

Mr. King: That seems to be the evidence of Southend council. I hope that every local authority will look objectively at every service that it provides in the interests of its ratepayers and electors to see that those services are provided in the most cost-effective way.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that privatisation offers the best hope of permanently reducing the cost to local government? Has he considered practices in the United States, and will he consider even legislation to ensure that local authorities put their services out to private tender?

Mr. King: I think I am right in saying that the vast majority of refuse collection is done by private contractors in the United States and that that is the normally accepted practice there. Only a tiny proportion of refuse collection is done by private contractors in the United Kingdom. The majority of it is done by council employees. It is not at all clear whether there is a logical reason why that should be so. That is why we want the matter to be examined as carefully as possible.

Mr. Weetch: Is the Minister aware that in various parts of the country people who want to buy council houses are being ripped off by a combination of estate agents and Tory councils? Is he further aware that these private services which are foisted upon prospective buyers are totally unnecessary, because local authorities, if they want to sell council houses, could ensure that they did not add burdens through the use of estate agents?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that housing is not my responsibility. I am sure that he will direct his allegations to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. However, my own observation is that the most severe rip-off of all relates to those Labour councils which are denying people the right to buy their own council homes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will play his part to ensure that the Ipswich council considerably improves its perormance.

Mr. Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proportion of rented housing available for people in housing need has practically dried up as a result of the antics of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman)? If the House could agree that landlords who were now prepared to rent houses would not have them snatched back by the Opposition's antics, more housing would now be available.

Mr. King: I seem to be taking over another portfolio. I am aware of the notorious activities of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). From my own observations in my constituency, I know that this increases the number of homeless people who could otherwise be properly housed.

Mr. Graham: We are aware of the Government's propensity to flog off valuable public assets, such as dockyards, ordnance factories and gas showrooms. Instead of encouraging local authorities to flog off valuable public services, why do the Government not respond to the anguished cries from Conservative councils, such as that in Enfield, which are being forced to lower even further their already low level of services?

Mr. King: I am sure the House would agree that many areas of public provision are at an inadequate level which we would like to see improved. However, part of the reason is that for far too long the State has tried to do far too much and has done it pretty badly. With the limited resources available, it is vital that we restrain the public sector so that those things which only the State can do are done properly.

Council Houses

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to take any new initiative to reduce the number of council dwellings which are empty.

Mr. Stanley: We have already taken a substantial number of initiatives to help local authorities to reduce the number of empty dwellings. These include the new improvement for sale scheme, the consents issued to authorities which wish to waive the interest payment for a period on mortgages granted for homesteading, the new powers for local authorities to guarantee building society mortgages, the consent given both to district and to county councils to sell vacant dwellings at discounts of up to 30


per cent. to priority groups—such as any first-time buyer— and the extension of subsidy to improvement expenditure on dwellings less than 30 years old.

Mr. Durant: Which councils have more than 2 per cent. of their stock empty? Which councils report regularly on empty housing to their housing committees? When the HIP applications reach my hon. Friend's Department, will he subsequently print the number of empty houses that they bring to light?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend will be aware that in an answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) on a previous occasion, I listed those local authorities which had more than 100 dwellings standing empty for more than 12 months. I do not have the figure for councils that have more than 2 per cent. of their stock empty. However, as my hon. Friend will be aware, according to the last HIP returns that we received, seven authorities reported more than 1,000 dwellings vacant for more than a year. They were Manchester, Islington, Knowsley, Hackney, Southwark, Lambeth and Camden.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my hon. Friend aware that nearly 1,000 houses are empty in the county of Norfolk—more than 600 in the city of Norwich alone? What action will he take to ensure that these properties are either let or sold?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have given local authorities substantial powers to reduce the number of empty dwellings. I hope that in every local authority area the ratepayers and electors will exert the maximum pressure to make certain that such empty dwellings are either sold or otherwise occupied. If the Opposition took a different attitude on shorthold, Norfolk would be the sort of area where one could create a considerable number of additional dwellings at no public expense.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called two Conservative Members in succession. I shall now call two Opposition Members.

Mr. Sever: Will the Minister admit that he has lost control of the situation? Why will he not be frank with the House and explain that the policies that the Government are pursuing and the arguments that he has put forward are not filling the void of empty houses in many local authority areas? Is not that due primarily to lack of initiative and support from the Conservative Administration?

Mr. Stanley: The primary difficulty is that certain local authorities would rather keep dwellings empty than sell them.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Has the Minister considered the analysis of HIP returns published in the July issue of the housing magazine "Roof"? While it is true that 2 per cent. of local authority dwellings are standing empty, 4 per cent. of dwellings in the private sector are standing empty. Has the hon. Gentleman also observed that of the 23,000 local authority dwellings that have stood empty for more than a year, 15,000—or 64 per cent.—are awaiting repair? Is not the Government's policy of cutting housing expenditure to local authorities contributing to the existence of empty property?

Mr. Stanley: I cannot accept that a local authority is justified in keeping a dwelling empty simply because it

needs to be repaired, given that the Conservative-controlled GLC had enormous success when it sold empty dwellings for homesteading to many of those in housing need in London. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of dwellings empty in the private sector. I should be grateful for his wholehearted support in ensuring the rescinding of the irresponsible commitment to repeal shorthold given by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman).

Westminster Hall

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he plans to replace the temporary security railings in Westminster Hall.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: No, Sir.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister agree that those ugly and inelegant railings thoroughly mar the beauty of a great and glorious building? Although the Minister is doing what he can to find resources for repairing the Palace of Westminster, when will these horrible objects be replaced?

Mr. Finsberg: On several occasions I have told the hon. and learned Gentleman that this is not a matter for my Department and that he should raise it with the Services Committee.

Mr. John Page: I have listened with avid interest and some embarrassment to my hon. Friend's final words. On the subject of the beautification of Westminster Hall, may I, as someone who does not always approve of turning harpsichords into cocktail cabinets, ask my hon. Friend to consider a new design for a functional standing microphone for use in Westminster Hall? The present microphone clashes disgracefully with the otherwise perfect Gothic background.

Mr. Finsberg: I should be glad to examine that possibility and to see whether some of the original Savoy Hill microphones are still available.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I may be out of order, Mr. Speaker, but, if the safety of those visiting the Palace of Westminster is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, is it not time that we looked after the parties of schoolchildren and others outside the building? If we do not do something soon to make things more orderly, some of them will undoubtedly be killed.

Mr. Finsberg: I shall ensure that that possibility is examined by those responsible.

Sporting Facilities (Disabled Persons)

Mr. John Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current financial allocation of funds by the Sports Council to sporting facilities for the disabled.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): The Sports Council does not specifically allocate a proportion of its grant aid for expenditure on sports facilities for the disabled.
Naturally, the Sports Council is aware of the needs of the disabled and grant aid is available both for the provision of special facilities and for the adaptation of existing ones.

Mr. Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend urgently consider requesting the Sports Council to allocate more funds in the International Year of Disabled People to facilities for the disabled? Is he aware that the medium of sport gives the disabled enormous pleasure as well as social benefit? Will he also try to encourage organisations, such as the Kerry Packer organisation, to put more money into sport for the disabled?

Mr. Monro: I agree that we must do all that we can to help the disabled. The Sports Council is playing an important part. This year it is giving £70,000 in the grant allocation. In addition, an estimated £15,000 will go towards Riding for the Disabled and £8,000 to the Amateur Swimming Association for specialist teaching services. The regional councils for sport and recreation are playing a full part in many of the programmes taking place throughout the country in this International Year of Disabled People.

Local Authorities (Insolvency)

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment in what circumstances, under existing or contemplated legislation, a local authority can become insolvent.

Mr. King: None, Sir. Local authorities are required by law to meet all their liabilities—whether debt charges or current liabilities—either out of revenue or by borrowing.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will the Minister give an assurance that in any legislation that his Department contemplates, particular care will be taken to ensure that, even if a local authority is, in the Secretary of State's view, being perverse and not fulfilling its commitment to its electorate, it will not become insolvent? Will he bear in mind that if a local authority became insolvent, that would affect the capacity of every other local authority to borrow money at favourable interest rates?

Mr. King: Yes, Sir. I am conscious of the importance of maintaining the creditworthiness of local authorities. Although I am able to give that assurance about local authorities, I cannot give it about their ratepayers. It is quite possible for commercial and industrial ratepayers to become insolvent, and many of them have faced that situation as a result of the demands being made on them by several local authorities. Given the hon. Gentleman's concern, I hope that he will recognise the need to moderate expenditure and consequent rate demands.

Mr. Squire: Nevertheless, may I endorse part of the question asked by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann)? Regardless of any possible change in legislation, a number of potential lenders to local authorities have become concerned as a result of the scare headlines that have been seen. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the situation is exactly as he has set out?

Mr. King: I confirm what I have said. It is important that this matter should be put on record. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend said, there have been scare headlines, and it is understandable that lenders may be concerned when they see some local authorities apparently paying scant regard to the rateable resources and capacities of their areas.

Mr. Kaufman: How can the right hon. Gentleman claim that paying rates makes businesses insolvent when

a survey carried out in the Manchester area, at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), showed that companies in that area paid 0·67 per cent. of their turnover in rates? Surely that is not a great burden.

Mr. King: If profits stand at 0·5 per cent. of turnover, that percentage could he a devastating amount.

Mr. Heddle: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that a major proportion of the rate burden falls on the shoulders of the industrial and commercial ratepayer, who has no voice, no vote, no say and no sanction about how profligate local authorities spend their money? Does my right hon. Friend agree that all businesses should be able to pay their rates by instalments, notwithstanding the measures introduced in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act? Given that the cash flow of businesses is more important than the cash flow of councils, should not that form of relief be extended right across the commercial sector?

Mr. King: We introduced proposals in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act so that businesses with a rateable value of up to £5,000 in London and up to £2,000 outside London could pay their rates by instalments. In some areas in which companies are in difficulties, local authorities have voluntarily entered into arrangements to help them. They have done so because they have been concerned to maintain employment and the security of companies in their areas. I wish that all local authorities showed the same concern.

Block Grant Allocation

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when next he expects to meet the leaders of the Association of County Councils to discuss the allocation of block grant.

Mr. King: I expect to meet the leaders of the ACC, together with the other local authority associations, in the consultative council on local government finance on 30 July.

Mr. Morris: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if a hard-pressed county, such as Northamptonshire, can meet its target, many other counties should be able to do so? Will he bear in mind that there is something wrong with the system when low per capita spenders, such as Cambridgeshire, find themselves facing a heavy penalty while some of the high per capita spenders, such as Cheshire, need to make only a marginal transfer back to the Government?

Mr. King: For the vast majority of local authorities it was not intolerable to request that they should meet the target of reducing the record level of local authority expenditure by 5·6 per cent. over three years. In the revision of budgets, I hope that most authorities will show what is possible. I recognise that there are problems about the way in which we have set the targets. That is why, when I spoke to a conference of local government treasurers, I invited them to put forward an alternative proposition. The Government made it clear that they were willing to entertain other targets if a better system could be introduced. Unfortunately, local government has been unable to suggest an alternative.

Mr. Joseph Dean: When the Minister discusses grants for the next settlement, will he consider revising his procedures? The last round moved resources away from large cities, where the pressure points are, in favour of county councils which vote Tory. Might that not have some bearing on what is happening in some of our cities?

Mr. King: In the new system of grant-related expenditure assessment, we have tried to get a fair and objective measurement of grant. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has put its views to us about the need to take into account the position of inner city areas. That is being considered in the grants working group discussions. The Government will have to take their view later for this year's rate support grant settlement.

Mr. Alton: When the Minister is considering the problems of local government finance, especially in relation to the inner cities, will he consider the problems for cities, such as Liverpool, which now have to face the consequences of the riots and the enormous costs involved—possibly millions of pounds? The invocation of the Riot (Damages) Act is not of real help to the city, because the cost will have to be borne by local ratepayers. Will he therefore consider, within the terms of the block grant payment, making special provision for additional Government finance to help those who have suffered riot damage?

Mr. King: We have a difficult problem in trying to assess a fair distribution of the grant. Everyone is aware of the problems to be faced in Liverpool and other cities. The hon. Gentleman is calling for extra funds, but I am sure he will accept that there does not appear to be an immediate direct correlation of the kind that he makes that it is necessarily the most deprived areas where the problems exist.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: When my right hon. Friend meets council leaders, will he take into account the fact that the Birmingham city council, though Socialist-controlled, feels that it is being harshly dealt with? Will he comment on the fact that as many Conservative leaders as Labour leaders of local authorities believe that the present system lacks common sense?

Mr. King: That is why I made the proposal that if any hon. Member or any member of local government would care to suggest an alternative or more satisfactory system, he should suggest it. I am disappointed that we have had no satisfactory response.

Mr. Oakes: When the Minister meets the Association of County Councils and other associations, will he discuss the threats that his right hon. Friend made on 2 June about what he will do with local authorities in legislation in the autumn and listen to their views about the threats?

Mr. King: I have already had meetings with local government representatives on this matter. We are awaiting the revision of budgets. Those are not due until the end of this month. We shall have to consider what action is necessary. It will take time to assess those revisions of budget, but, if they do not achieve the economies we need and it is necessary to proceed with a consultation document, we shall do that at the earliest possible date to allow us to consult the local authorities. We shall need to press on with that, and it will probably be in early September.

Council House Sales

Dr. Mawhinney: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications to buy council and new town houses have been received since the Housing Act came into force up to the most recent convenient date; and how many of these applications have resulted in sales.

Mr. Stanley: In the first six-month period after the Housing Act came into force, the number of right-to-buy claims received by local authorities and new towns in England was approximately 263,000. Of those some 2,200 sales had been completed by 31 March. In addition to the sales being carried out under the right-to-buy procedures, a number of authorities are processing additional sales to sitting tenants under the voluntary arrangements permitted by the general consents for the disposal of local authority dwellings.

Dr. Mawhinney: Does my hon. Friend agree that when all the rhetoric has died down and all the academic analyses have been written the figures that he has announced are the true measure of the success of our policies?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he will be aware, the fact that more than 250,000 council tenants have applied to buy their homes, coming on top of about 140,000 completed sales since the Government came into office, totally vindicates our policies.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister realise that selling the much-needed stock of houses is legalised robbery of taxpayers' money? Is he aware that in my city the waiting list is as large as the number of council houses being built in a year under this Government? Does he not realise that by selling those houses cheaply he is taking what he calls taxpayers' money? He is also selling the best houses. That leaves the remainder for those living in high rise flats, for example, who want to move out of them. The housing that is being sold should be available to those tenants. What will the Minister do to stop the robbery that is going on in the name of his Government?

Mr. Stanley: The so-called robbery to which the hon. Gentleman refers was endorsed by the British electorate at the last election.

Mr. Dobson: Where are the tax cuts?

Mr. Stanley: I am certain that the 3,700 council tenants seeking to exercise their right to buy in Sheffield completely support the policy. I look forward to the action of the Sheffield city council in implementing the timetable that it has agreed to set for implementing the right to buy.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that almost a year after the Housing Act came into force not a single offer notice has been sent out to over 1,000 families who have applied for the right to buy in the borough of Watford? Will he take it from me that although the letter that he has recently sent to the chief executive of Watford borough council has been of encouragement to my constituents, they want to hear his assurance that if he is not satisfied with the reply received he will not hesitate to use his powers under the Act to intervene on their behalf?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his robust defence of the interests of his constituents. As a result of his representations, which have drawn my


attention to the serious delays in Watford, the Department has now formally written to the local authority about the inadequacy of its present progress.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister confirm that, because of the Housing Act, local authorities will on average have to sell 12 council houses to obtain the capital receipts to build one new council house? What advice can the Minister offer to the 1¼ million people on the waiting lists who see councils selling houses and the Government stopping council house building?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady because she has confirmed that, for example, if the city of Manchester, which has 6,000 right-to-buy applications, had made greater progress earlier with the right to buy it would be in a position to build 500 more council houses.

Mr. William Hamilton: What a fool.

Local Authorities (Expenditure)

Mr. Dover: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce further measures to protect ratepayers from the consequences of the high spending policies of some local councils.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): As I told the House on 2 June, I am considering further measures, including the possibility of legislation next Session, to bring home to individual authorities and their electorate the consequences of high spending policies.

Mr. Dover: Is my right hon. Friend aware that following the recent county council elections Lancashire county council, by its new policies, is levying an 18p supplementary rate? Does he realise what effect that will have on businesses and householders? Will my right hon. Friend accept that the ratepayers and electors will fully support any measures that he wants to take?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's view that the incidence of supplementary rates of the sort to which he refers will lead to further worsening of an already difficult economic situation. That will undoubtedly worsen unemployment.

Mr. Eastham: Is it not a fact that the crisis from which local government is suffering is not so much to do with its spending policies as with the savage cuts of the rate support grant and high interest rates—another factor introduced by the Conservative Government?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is aware that interest rates throughout the world are higher than we have been accustomed to. The real crisis facing large parts of local government is that they are not prepared to accept that, Britain's ability to maintain present living standards has been seriously eroded by the world recession. The longer that they refuse to accept that the longer it will take this country to recover.

Mr. Pawsey: I recognise the need to retain local democracy, but will my right hon. Friend consider imposing an absolute ceiling on rates increases, thereby ensuring that the hard-pressed ratepayers of Labour-controlled authorities do not have to suffer increased hardship?

Mr. Heseltine: I am being pressed to take the sort of measures to which my hon. Friend refers. That is a

possibility that the Governmnent must consider seriously. The difficulty that faces us is that a limited number of local authorities appear to feel that they can act outside the restraints of Government policy. Thus, they are changing the traditional relationship of freedom that has existed between central and local government.

Mr. Kaufman: Is it not a fact that of the local authorities that the right hon. Gentleman says are, according to his criteria, overspending, 70 per cent. are Conservative Party-controlled? Is it not a further fact that 14 councils of which Labour obtained control in May are, according to the right hon. Gentleman, overspenders to the extent of £186 million? That overspend is on Conservative budgets. Why should Labour councillors be penalised for Tory budgets?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Member will know full well that the effect of the holdback arrangements that I have put forward is incidental to the party control of the authorities concerned. He will be aware that I have shown to each authority, irrespective of its political control, the level of holdback that is proposed if the budget should not change from the original submission, and I have acted in a totally non-political way in this sense.

Local Authorities (Land Holdings)

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the contents of the registers of local authority land which he has required to he compiled under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

Mr. Heseltine: Registers of unused and underused public land more than one acre in extent have been published in 27 out of the 33 areas so far designated to have them. In total, the 27 now contain 1,723 sites amounting to 16,366 acres. Two more registers, for Birmingham and Sandwell, will be published this Friday.
As I stated in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) on 26 June, about one-third of the registered acreage is now considered to be suitable for development.

Mr. Latham: Is not the figure of 16,000 acres of unused land absolutely disgraceful? Is it not clear that if local authorities do not take action to get that land developed quickly, my right hon. Friend should use his powers under the Act to require them to do so?

Mr. Heseltine: I very much support my hon. Friend's views. Nothing indicates more the misgovernment of Britain under the previous Administration than that they allowed this scandal of public sector land to go unchecked in the way in which these registers have now demonstrated.

Mr. Jay: Is the Secretary of State aware that the largest unused building site in my constituency, which is in the ownership of a private property company, has been unused for 15 years and that now, because of the Government's interest rate policy, it cannot be developed? What does he propose to do about that?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Member will be aware that I cannot have knowledge of every site in his constituency. However, I am sure that he will want to examine the scale of other publicly owned land that might exist in his constituency and which could be made available for more profitable use at an early date.

Mr. Durant: Will my right hon. Friend look at the whole question of derelict land in relation to all public authorities—the gas board, the coal board and so on? This is a public scandal. These tracts of land are lying available. Why should they not be used?

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, because his question gives me an opportunity to make it clear that the 16,000 acres of land to which I have referred is not just local authority land but the land of public undertakers, too.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State undertake to place in the Library of the House details of all the sites to which he has referred which are suitable for building development but which have been subject to abandonment or postponement of local authority building schemes as a result of the Government restricting the money available?

Mr. Heseltine: It is an easy choice for the local authority concerned to let the private sector develop the land for housing at an early date.

Unified Housing Benefit Scheme

Mr. Stallard: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many pensioners will be worse off under the proposed unified housing benefit scheme outlined in the consultative paper "Assistance with Housing Costs".

Mr. Stanley: It has been estimated that the housing benefit proposals referred to would result in about 1.1 million pensioners in Great Britain, with incomes above the needs allowance, being worse off, on average, by 26p a week. They would also result in about 900,000 pensioners, almost all with incomes below the needs allowance, being better off, on average, by 83p a week. This assumes the adoption of the topping-up scheme in the consultation paper. Fuller information is given in tables 1, 2 and 6 which have been placed in the Library, as announced in the reply given on 13 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire).

Mr. Stallard: I am grateful for that reply. However, will the Minister confirm that the payments that he has mentioned, which will be paid to some pensioners, will have to be paid for at the expense of other claimants because of the nil cost condition of this scheme? Furthermore, will he confirm that the Department of Health and Social Security estimates that it will save, on 2,000 staff, about £17 million if these proposals are adopted? Will the Minister accept, therefore, that because of those two conditions and the extra burden that will be thrown upon local authorities, which are not in a fit state to cope with this burden, the present proposals are unworkable and unjust and ought to be reconsidered?

Mr. Stanley: I think that the hon. Member will want to consider carefully the tables to which I have drawn his attention. One thing that comes out clearly in the overall scheme, when one is bringing together two separate systems of housing cost support, is that under the present proposals there is substantial overall benefit to pensioners. We estimate the current net financial benefit to pensioners at some £23 million, so the overall balance is in favour of pensioners.
As regards the administrative cost savings to the DHSS, the hon. Member is right when he says that the Government have produced an estimate of such savings,

and representations have been made to us that the utilisation of some of those cost savings might be directed towards those who are losers under the scheme. We shall be considering those representations after the consultation period.

Mr. Newens: How can the Minister possibly justify putting additional hardships on many tenants as a result of proposals now being put before local authorities? Does not the Minister recognise that many of those who will be hard hit by the proposals will have no means of paying off the additional amounts that they will be faced with paying? What does he propose to do to help those people?

Mr. Stanley: I hope that the hon. Member will analyse the facts. As a result of these proposals, we are producing a net increase in financial help to some groups, Including pensioners—

Mr. Newens: What about the others?

Mr. Stanley: —and that must be taken into account. But, in bringing together two separate systems of financial support, it is inevitable that there will be some gainers and some losers.
On the overall basis, pensioners gain financially. Also, one of the central justifications for this change is an attempt to end the very great difficulty of many low-income families in trying to make the best choice financially as between rent rebates and supplementary benefit. One of the major social benefits of this change is the ending of the great difficulty of many hundreds of thousands of families in making that choice.

Nuclear Waste

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what replies he has received to his invitation to contractors to submit preliminary proposals relating to involvement in the nuclear waste test drilling programme.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): There were 17 replies from bodies interested in carrying out geological fieldwork, of which four specifically mentioned research on crystalline rock. Any research which involves drilling will be dependent on the necessary planning consents being obtained.

Mr. Beith: Has not the Minister jumped the gun by issuing invitations, since there is nowhere where these companies can drill after planning permission has been refused, both at Kyle and Carrick in Scotland and in the Northumberland national park? Or has the Minister already decided to overrule the county council before he has seen the inspector's report?

Mr. Shaw: The inspector has not yet submitted his report. Despite the allegations made in local media, no decision on this matter has, therefore, been taken. Those who are responsible for advising on these matters, such as the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, have recommended that, despite many other alternative sorts of storage, research work should continue. That is the present policy.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that there is widespread objection to any programme of drilling for the implantation of nuclear waste, because of the grave dangers which arise from the storage of nuclear waste,


either at depth or in any other way? Will he give a complete assurance that this experimental programme in no way prejudges his decision?

Mr. Shaw: I give the hon. Gentleman that total assurance. We are dealing here with research work.

Building Societies Association

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what matters he discussed with officials of the Building Societies Association on the last occasion on which he met them.

Mr. Heseltine: Officials of my Department meet regularly with representatives of the Building Societies Association on the joint advisory committee on building society mortgage finance. Matters recently discussed include the net inflow of funds to societies and the level of mortgage advances.

Mr. McCrindle: What does my right hon. Friend think the building societies and their millions of borrowers will make of the suggestion that there should be a phasing out of tax relief on mortgage interest, as is evidently to be recommended to the national executive committee of the Labour Party as future party policy? Does he agree that if the report in The Times today is correct, a proposal ostensibly aimed at the so-called rich will have the effect of imposing a devastating increase on the average family budget?

Mr. Heseltine: I suppose that the detached observer would draw from the reports in the newspapers today the conclusion that the Labour Party is back in its traditional role of attacking private wealth and private house ownership.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Secretary of State aware that the question put by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) is false? Is he further aware that the Labour Party is in favour of granting tax relief on mortgage interest on houses at the basic rate but not of allowing it at up to 60 per cent. on those of the very wealthy?

Mr. Heseltine: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House which Labour Party he speaks for?

Mr. Jessel: Would it not be right to review the present limit on tax relief on mortgage interest? It was fixed at a £25,000 borrowing level by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), then Chancellor of the Exchequer, as far back as 1974. The average price of a house in Greater London is now £30,000 and in constituencies like Twickenham more like £40,000.

Mr. Heseltine: I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's point. We have had to consider this matter from time to time. We have felt, however, that in present circumstances it could not be accorded the level of priority that such an adjustment would imply.

Mr. Newens: In the event of interest rates being forced up by international conditions, what steps will the Secretary of State take to protect mortgage owners against increases in their present burdens? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a much more pressing question than speculation about Labour Party policy, on which the right hon. Gentleman is singularly ill equipped to pronounce?

Mr. Heseltine: I agree that there is little purpose in speculating about Labour Party policy, as there is no prospect of a Labour Government ever having to carry it out. Britain is not immune from the actions of the international economy. The best way to protect people from the dangers of high interest rates in this country is to keep down the level of Government borrowing, which must affect the national level of interest rates.

Council House Rents

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to make any further increases in the level of council house rents in the next 12 months.

Mr. Stanley: It is for local authorities to decide on their rent levels following my right hon. Friend's determination of reckonable income under section 100 of the Housing Act 1980. The determination for 1982–83 will be made later this year.

Mr. Allaun: Are not compulsory rent increases of £5·35 a week in the last two years more than enough? Does the Minister intend to increase rents further in the next 12 months? The Labour Party believes in both council housing and owner-occupation. Is it not, therefore, grossly unfair that while the subsidy on council houses is halved, the subsidy on owner-occupation is raised to £2·2 billion a year?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman can be assured that no decisions have been made about the split between current and capital housing expenditure for future years. He must realise that this year's determination follows from a very low base. In our first year in office, rents represented only 6·4 per cent. of earnings, the lowest on record. Last year, the figure was 6·5 per cent. The hon. Gentleman says that the Labour Party is the party of owner-occupation. That is not reflected in its attitude towards the right to buy.

Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Labour Party, when last in Government, had not ignored, in its coward-like way, the recommendations of the 1977 Green Paper that council rents should rise in line with money incomes, it would not be necessary for rents to be increased to a realistic level now? Does he further agree that 45 out of every 100 council tenants do not meet their increases in council house rents either in full or in part because of the generous increase in rent rebate allowances initiated by my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is right when he says that about 46 per cent. of local authority tenants receive help with their rent through the supplementary benefit system or through the rent rebate system. It is an interesting commentary on our earlier exchanges about capital investment that while the Labour Party, when in Government, increased significantly the amount of public expenditure, in real terms, devoted to housing subsidies, it halved the capital programme.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not a mockery for the Government, while forcing councils to push up council rents by about 40 per cent., to say that they are fighting inflation? Why does not the Minister come clean and say that the Government intend, during the lifetime of this Parliament, to phase out housing subsidies for council tenants?

Mr. Stanley: I have made it clear that one cannot look simply at the gross figures. Nearly half the total of local authority tenants receive substantial assistance towards their rent through rent rebates and through the supplementary benefit system. That has to be taken into account in the overall calculation.

International Sporting Events (Financial Assistance)

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that the resources allocated by the Government to sport are adequate to enable British sportsmen and women to compete effectively in international events.

Mr. Monro: All Government money for sport is channelled through the independent Sports Council. It decides, in co-operation with the governing bodies of sport concerned, how much grant aid each should receive to assist its sportsmen and women to compete in international events. I understand that the Sports Council has had no complaints that its grants are inadequate.

Mr. Dubs: Does the Minister agree that the British men and women's athletics teams scored outstanding victories last weekend and that this success was partly due to the support that British athletics has received from the Sports Aid Foundation? Will the hon. Gentleman turn his attention to the more disappointing performance of British tennis players? Will he examine, in particular, the stranglehold imposed on tennis by the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club at Wimbledon, which seems to put the interests of its members ahead of any consideration of devoting its vast resources to aid British tennis?

Mr. Monro: It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman should have spoilt his supplementary question with the second part of it. I agree that last weekend saw a triumph for British athletics in Scandinavia and in Edinburgh. Hon. Members will wish our team well in the final.
The hon. Gentleman's criticism of the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club is unjustified. A club that runs so effectively and efficiently the world's premier tennis tournament deserves our commendation and praise. There is no doubt that the sums of money from

Wimbledon, paid to the Lawn Tennis Association for the development of tennis in this country, are significant. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has noted the grants made this week from the Sports Council for new indoor facilities and the Sports Council's involvement in Bisham Abbey. This shows progress in the right direction.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that sportsmen are not so interested in money allocated to them as they are in being able to play in whatever country they wish throughout the world? Will he confirm that the Government intend to give them the freedom of choice to play wherever they wish, including South Africa?

Mr. Monro: My hon. Friend has raised another question. I offer all praise to the Sports Aid Foundation and its chairman, Paul Zetter, who have done a tremendous amount for this country in international sport.

Mr. Denis Howell: On the question of resources for sport, does the Minister have regard to the social purposes that sport ought to be serving, particularly in view of massive youth unemployment, inner city deprivation and multiracial tensions? If resources were adequate, sport could play a tremendous role, but we know that resources have been cut, particularly to local authorities. Will the hon. Gentleman apply the Government's mind to the role that sport can play in that respect?
On international sport, we fully endorse the successful efforts of the Sports Aid Foundation, which has produced tremendous beneficial effects in athletics and other sports. What is the Minister doing to get the Smith report on lawn tennis implemented as soon as possible?

Mr. Monro: The right hon. Gentleman has raised three important questions. The Smith report is evolving rapidly through discussions with the LTA and the result will be beneficial to lawn tennis. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Sports Aid Foundation, He raised an important point about urban deprivation. The Sports Council is looking at that matter carefully and I am having further discussions with the chairman today. Sport and recreation have a part to play in the problems that are facing us, but we need motivators and people more than facilities.

Gas Appliances (Report)

The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the action which the Government have decided to take following the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of certain domestic gas appliances, published last year.
I told the House on 17 June of the public interest findings made by the commission in its report. It considered that the British Gas Corporation's monopoly had acted against the public interest by restricting competition in the retailing of appliances. This had limited the number of independent outlets and suppressed competition and probably had increased prices.
The commission also considered that the manufacturers' over-dependence on the BGC had indirectly led to poor export performance on the part of manufacturers, reduced incentives to improve efficiency and depressed investment and that this was against the public interest.
I told the House on 17 June of the options put forward in the MMC report. The Government have considered these and others with great care, bearing in mind that the Government's objective and first responsibility must be to respond to, and remedy, the adverse findings in the commission's report in a way consistent with the need to give consumers wider choice, better service, safety, availability and convenience and, at the same time, to minimise as far as possible any adverse effects of any change on our own manufacturing industry and the employees of the British Gas Corporation.
I should like to repeat the statement which I made in the House on 17 June that no solution that failed to maintain safety, at least at its present level, that generally inconvenienced consumers or that was seriously damaging to manufacturers would be acceptable to the Government.
Having considered carefully and consulted widely, the Government have concluded that in order to remedy the adverse effects identified by the commission the BGC should withdraw from its current retailing operations but that the timetable of three years in the MMC's first option is too compressed a period.
The Government have decided, therefore, that the corporation should be required to cease retailing domestic gas appliances and to dispose of its showrooms over a five-year period. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"].

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must hear the statement before they can ask questions about it.

Mrs. Oppenheim: This would be a carefully structured and phased programme of withdrawal, with the corporation being required to dispose of half its showrooms within two years, a further quarter in the following year and the remaining quarter in the final two years. The Government will, if necessary, introduce legislation to give effect to this decision.
As a counterpart to these steps, the Government are also considering measures under the Fair Trading Act to counteract certain adverse effects of the gas appliance manufacturers' monopolies identified by the commission.
The Government are clearly concerned to minimise the impact of their decision on employment. In this context, I must stress that the Government are not proposing to curtail British Gas's servicing and installation activities.

The decision will therefore have a direct bearing only on those who are employed in appliance retailing, mainly in British Gas's showrooms.
The Government would wish British Gas to maintain some consumer contact points, and, since the corporation has stated that 80 per cent. of showroom staff's time is spent on activities other than retailing, the number of jobs which could be affected should be minimised. Nevertheless, the Government recognise that concerns about employment are deeply felt by the corporation's employees, although, in the Government's view, those fears are largely unfounded.
The Government will consult British Gas and the unions closely at all stages about the detailed implementation of these decisions so that the impact on employment prospects can be minimised.
The Government are well aware that a change of the kind that they have decided upon will represent a radical move away from the gas appliance market as we know it today. But the Government would not have reached the decision which they have reached if they did not believe it to be right, justified and necessary and a measure essential to the enhancement of competition in the public interest.
We believe also that as this sector evolves away from its present monopoly-dominated structure there will be positive benefits alike to the consumer and to gas appliance manufacturers, as competition between retailers develops to meet consumer needs and satisfy consumer demand, providing, as enhanced competition always does, wider choice and better service.

Mr. John Smith: Is the Minister aware that that is one of the most appalling and spiteful decisions ever announced by the Government? It is further evidence of the spite and animus that exist within the Government towards the British Gas Corporation, one of our most successful industries. Following hard on the heels of the decision to force the corporation to dispose of the Wytch Farm oilfield, the corporation is to be forced to give up a profitable and successful retailing business in order to satisfy the Government's ideological requirements.
Does the Minister realise that there is no provision in her statement to counter the legitimate fears about safety which have been expressed ever since this matter was first raised? Is she aware that recent statistics show that private sector gas installers have 15 times more accidents than the British Gas Corporation in the installation of appliances?
Is the Minister aware that the decision to remove the profitable retailing arm from the British Gas Corporation and to leave it with responsibility for safety, service and installation is disgraceful? The corporation will not make the profits from retailing to provide proper service and installation cover, and after the private firms have made a quick profit British Gas, for years afterwards, will have the responsibility for service, maintenance and safety.
Is the Minister aware that thousands of jobs, not only in the British Gas Corporation but in the gas appliance manufacturing industry, will be thrown away needlessly by this decision? Does she realise that 1,000 school leavers are taken on each year by the British Gas Corporation in the servicing and installation departments? Does she agree that such jobs cannot be guaranteed? Carelessly to throw thousands of good employees out of a job to satisfy the Government's ideological whim demonstrates the nadir which the Government have reached.
Is the Minister aware that as a result of the decision British gas appliance manufacturers will be displaced in the market place by a flood of foreign imports brought in by private sector retailers?
Who is in favour of the decision, apart from the Government and private sector interests which will benefit from it? Is it surprising that both the gas consumers' councils and the National Consumer Council have come out violently against the decision which the Minister has announced? Does she agree that the decision is a remarkable humiliation for the Secretary of State for Energy, particularly in view of the Minister from whom the humiliation is delivered?
Is the right hon. Lady aware that the decision will be met with united and determined opposition from the whole Labour movement? Does she realise that in an industry where industrial relations are a model it is likely that industrial action will be taken by employees affected by the decision? Is she further aware that the Labour Party will seek to reverse the decision as soon as it has the power to do so? Finally, will not this appalling decision lead to lower safety standards, worse service, higher prices and poorer choice for consumers?

Mrs. Oppenheim: I shall attempt to answer the right hon. Gentleman in a shorter time than he took to put his questions.
First, this is not a party political matter. The reference was made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission by the Labour Government. The commission is an independent body. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that a Labour Government, on receipt of a report containing such adverse criticism, would do nothing on behalf of the consumer?
On the question of safety, I consulted Dr. Philip King, senior lecturer in chemical engineering at the University of Manchester, who is responsible for two major reports on gas safety to both Labour and Conservative Governments. Dr. King said that, in his view, with adequate safeguards there should be no safety problems inherent in the sanction of private gas installation. I have already explained the safeguards.
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong not only in his facts but in his assumptions. The Government do not believe that the employment consequences of the decision will be anything like those which have been advanced. If the same number of gas appliances are used and installed, substantially the same number of engineers will be employed. A number of hon. Members will wish to ask more about that. The Government will not accept a standard which is lower than the present standard. There is no reason why the consequences for employment should be anything like those put forward, and inflamed, by the right hon. Gentleman today.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her decision will be welcomed by all those who put the interests of the consumer before the interests of nationalised monopolies, unless they have swallowed the outrageous propaganda campaign of the British Gas Corporation? Will she reassure the public about safety by explaining the principal cause of gas accidents? Is it installation or something else? Is it not a fact that the services of people who are doing useful and necessary jobs now will be required by the private sector?

Mrs. Oppenheim: I can reassure my hon. Friend on both matters. The Government will, of course, want to ensure that safety is achieved by the observance of codes of practice, either voluntary or statutory if necessary, and by higher standards for appliances, if that proves necessary. Dr. King has confirmed that the connection of gas appliances, except in the case of central heating appliances, 92 per cent. of which are installed by the private sector, does not present a safety problem.
About 95 per cent. of appliances are sold for central heating, which represents the potentially dangerous sector of the market, and are already installed by the private sector. If the decision results in the Government's achieving a more comprehensive safety record among the few cowboys in the private sector—not the Council of Registered Gas Installers approved installation engineers to whom the British Gas Corporation subcontracts—the decision will be in consumers' interests.
I refute the figures relating to unemployment. The British Gas Corporation will be bound to keep a substantial proportion of people employed to deal with inspections, emergencies, maintenance and warranty claims and for service contracts on sales that have taken place in the last five years. There is no reason why the BGC, although no longer retailing appliances, should not stay in the service and installation market.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that two Supply day debates on regional policy and higher education, in which there is considerable interest, are to take place later. In addition, we have an opposed Ten-Minute Bill. If there is a Division on that, that matter could take over half an hour. I propose to allow questions on the statement to continue until 4.5 pm, and then we must move on.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Does not the right hon. Lady know that the best practice throughout the world is to keep an integrated process of collection, distribution and utilisation? Will not the practical result of the Government's policy be to push up prices and costs all round? Why do the Government, and particularly the Minister, have such hatred of publicly owned industries. to the despair of those who work so hard within them?

Mrs. Oppenheim: As far as I know, in no other country in the free world does the supplier of gas also have a retailing monopoly. There is no justification for it. But that is not what determined the Government's decision. It was determined by the adverse effect of this monopoly on the consumer and, in particular, on consumer choice and price. There is no case of which I know where active competition does not enhance service, widen choice and raise standards.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is welcome to see the Government acting in response to the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and in the consumer interest? Will she assure the House that she will look carefully at the need to make the codes of practice on safety statutory rather than voluntary? That would go a long way to reassuring people. Will she reassure the House that she will not be deflected from this sensible decision by any hysterical union pressure?

Mrs. Oppenheim: I can reassure my hon. Friend. The Government are adamant that safety standards should not fall. It is important, however, that anyone connecting gas appliances should follow the codes of practice and exercise care, particularly in initiation procedures. The Government are considering whether the codes should remain voluntary or become statutory and whether higher standards for both performance and safety of appliances might be introduced.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Is the Minister aware that the decision is final proof that she has lost all grasp of what is happening in Britain today? Will she explain how the instruction to the BGC to sell its showrooms will help the 3 million unemployed and stop the daily riots? How can the Minister possibly enforce the safety regulations to which she referred in her statement?

Mrs. Oppenheim: First, the hon. Gentleman is wrong, as are a number of other people, in his assumptions about the consequences for employment. If consumer demand remains at its present level
—demand for gas appliances such as cookers has remained level and I would expect it to rise—private sector retailers will meet the demand, and that will benefit those employed in the manufacturing industry. We are talking about a transition of employment from the public sector to the private sector, not about unemployment.
I pay tribute to those who work for the corporation. Those who are planning and taking initiatives to expand in the private sector—they include some co-ops—are to be congratulated on their initiative. It is to them that we shall look to create the secure jobs of the future.

Mr. Terry Davis: If it is the Minister's intention to stop the British Gas Corporation selling appliances and the showroom staff spend 80 per cent. of their time on other activities, why is she insisting that the corporation must close its showrooms?

Mrs. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman must have misheard me, which is understandable in the circum-stances. It is 80 per cent. of the time that is spent on other activities. Much of this time is spent on emergency work, on safety and installation, and on dealing with suspected leaks. That is carried out not in the showrooms but by the British Gas Corporation separately. Those services will still be maintained and will have to be maintained. Many of the corporation's liabilities, both under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and under the warranty and service contracts on which it has already embarked, will continue for a number of years.
The Government have lengthened the period put forward in one of the commission's recommendations to allow a period for adaption and transition to the more active and competitive private sector retailing markets. I see no reason why a substantial number of those currently employed by the corporation in retailing, installation and maintenance should not be employed in the private sector, while a considerable hard core will have to be maintained in employment by the corporation.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the State corporation, Gaz de France, does not sell appliances, nor the subsidiaries of ENI, the Italian State corporation? Will she also give an assurance that CORGI will be maintained and will remaining

independent? Will she also tell the House whether she wishes to pursue this course by means of a statutory instrument or by a Bill?

Mrs. Oppenheim: Yes, CORGI will be maintained. It is true that the retailing of gas appliances in France is carried out entirely by the private sector. According to information that I was given recently, in one private sector showroom in France 100 different gas cooker models were available. In this country, within a square mile of an average small city there are 35 different electric cooker models available, and over 200 are available for delivery within a week. That is what the private sector does and that is the sort of choice of gas appliances that I hope will be available to the consumer.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: In her statement the Minister said that she had consulted everyone concerned. Is she aware that we all know from the now almost daily press handouts and leaks that that includes the trade unions? Is she further aware that in this industry the unions concerned are known as moderate unions but that they have stated that if this decision is implemented they will all call an official strike throughout the industry? Has the Minister considered that aspect?

Mrs. Oppenheim: First, let me reassure the hon. Gentleman. I have had long meetings with the trade unions concerned, meetings which I found valuable and useful. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the unions. They are moderate and responsible; they have a reputation for moderation, responsibility and concern for the public interest, which I respect and of which I had evidence when I met them. Of course I sympathise with their concern. However, I cannot believe that they would embark on action—although obviously one cannot rule it out—that would be detrimental to the interests of the individual and their own colleagues in industry, as well as to the economy as a whole, on the basis of suggestions and beliefs which have yet to be shown to have any foundation.

Mr. Tom Ellis (Wrexham): Why will not the Minister allow the corporation to remain in the gas appliance business in competition with the private sector?

Mrs. Oppenheim: The corporation will be in competition with the private sector over the next five years. Only at the end of the five-year period will these activities be phased out. As I have already told the House, in no other country in the free world of which I am aware is there a retail presence by a provider of the main utility.
The main reason for the Government's decision is that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission reached adverse public interest conclusions about the way in which the British Gas Corporation retail monopoly operated against the public and consumer interest. The Government had to take steps that they considered most appropriate to remedy that.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I declare an interest as a consultant to the Society of British Gas Industries, the trade associaion for the private sector of the gas industry. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us feel that these tactics of salami—slicing the public sector are the wrong way of tackling the serious problems of monopoly that characterise the public sector? Is she further aware that we would prefer the possibility of the British Gas Corporation being enabled to raise private equity capital on the market?


Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there has been considerable investment by manufacturers of cookers, that the efficiency of gas appliance manufacturers has dramatically improved in recent years, and that there is a danger of serious import penetration, which should be recognised?

Mrs. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend underestimates the manufacturing industry, for which he is speaking today. I have confidence that the industry will be capable of exploiting the new market that is open to it and of meeting consumer demand and consumer need more effectively than it has in the past. I believe that in the end the industry will welcome this change. It will be to its advantage and to the advantage of the economy as a whole.
I agree with my hon. Friend that there has been a noticeable improvement, particularly since the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. What it is important for the Government to consider is how to maintain and sustain that improvement.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Following the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), I had better declare my interest as secretary of the General and Municipal Workers Union parliamentary group. That union represents 50 per cent. of the workers in the gas industry.
The right hon. Lady's statement was probably as bogus a statement as the House has ever heard. The right hon. Lady expresses concern about employment. I do not believe that she has any concern about employment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am not reading. I do not have to, because, unlike the right hon. Lady, I know the industry.
Can the Government implement the decisions announced in the statement without introducing legisla-tion? The statement refers to consulting the unions in the industry about the implementation of the proposals. Does not the right hon. Lady realise that that is tantamount to saying that having decided to castrate the industry financially she will consult it as to whether a bread knife or a meat cleaver will do the job?

Mrs. Oppenheim: I shall not accept any lectures from the hon. Gentleman about who feels concern about employment, as the section of the Labour Party led by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) put forward last weekend policies that would create the highest unemployment that we have ever had.
Of course one is concerned, but it is not the Government's view that our decision will lead to greatly increased levels of unemployment, or even substantial levels of unemployment. The question is how swiftly the transition can take place and how much co-operation will be shown by Sir Denis Rooke and the corporation in ensuring that the transition is smooth. I cannot believe that Sir Denis and the corporation, taking account of the safety assurances, employment assurances and availability assurances that I have given, would want to do other than to assist in the smoothest possible transition and—we hope—to obviate the need for legislation.

Mr. Tim Eggar: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the vast majority of Conservative Members on her extremely courageous statement? Will she go on to confirm that she will make it clear to Sir Denis Rooke and the senior management of

British Gas that they are expected to comply with and agree with the statement that she made today, in exactly the same way as all hon. Members would expect a private sector company's senior management to comply if the Monopolies and Mergers Commission reported against a private sector monopoly?

Mrs. Oppenheim: Negotiations with the chairman of the British Gas Corporation are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, but I trust that my right hon. Friend will not have to make those points in such a forceful way. It would be unusual, and I should be surprised, for the chairman of a great public undertaking to seek in any way to frustrate the decision of a democratically elected Government. I believe that the safeguards that the Government have implied, and negotiations and consultations with both the corporation's management and the unions at every stage, should ensure that the transition is as smooth as it should be, in the public interest.

Mr. loan Evans: Does the right hon. Lady realise that what she has announced today is Right-wing reactionary Tory dogma? If she reads the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, she will see that options were suggested. Will she cease calling herself "Minister for Consumer Protection", because she is denying the consumer protection? She is doing that by destroying the choice of gas facilities now available in the gas showrooms, a choice which will no longer be available in many rural areas and cities if her plan goes through. Will the right hon. Lady, even at this stage, reconsider her policy, which is detrimental to consumers?

Mrs. Oppenheim: I have read the report thoroughly. I agree that the commission put forward a number of options, but, as I made clear in my statement today arid in the House on 17 June, it is the Government's responsibility to take a decision in the public interest, on the basis of the report of an independent body. The Government have taken this decision to protect the consumer's interest, which, according to the report, was being undermined by the dominant and overbearing position of the British Gas Corporation in the retailing of gas appliances. That was probably putting up prices and definitely reducing choice—as one can see if one compares it with the choice of electrical appliances. The commission operates in the public interest, and mainly in the interests of the consumer.

Mr. John Smith: Why is the consumer to be deprived of the choice of British Gas appliances? Will the right hon. Lady answer the question that has been put several times in these exchanges: is legislation required, and, if so, when will it be introduced?

Mrs. Oppenheim: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first question is that the consumer will not be deprived of the opportunity to buy British Gas appliances. Indeed, the opportunity to do so will be increased instead of being curtailed. If the status quo is allowed to continue, those in the private sector who cannot always obtain what they want from manufacturers, because of the corporation's monopoly, will increasingly turn to imports.
I made it clear in my statement that if legislation proved necessary the Government would introduce it. As for the precise date, the right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate the next Queen's Speech, but I can say that


consultations between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and the chairman of the corporation have already begun. The consultations may obviate the need for legislation. I hope that they will, but the Government are not counting on that, and, if necessary, and when appropriate, they will be prepared to introduce legislation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Application under Standing Order No. 9—

Mr. Peter Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you would agree that you would not be straying beyond the bounds of impartiality if you agreed that the right hon. Lady took an inordinately long time to answer most of the questions. You will also agree that many Opposition Members still wish to ask questions on this serious, indeed outrageous, matter. In view of the Minister's long answers, are you prepared to extend the time available for questions for another five or 10 minutes?

Mr. Speaker: The difficulty is to be fair to those who wish to speak later in the debates on regional policy and higher education. Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in those debates. That is why I put on the time limit. I think that we had better stick to it, because we cannot debate this matter today.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Lady to make a statement with clear employment implications and yet not state how many thousands of jobs will be lost?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making the point that he would have made if I called him to ask a question.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members have genuine points of order, I shall listen to them, but it will be very unfair to the House if hon. Members waste time on points of order that are not genuine.

Mr. Douglas Jay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not entirely inappropriate and unsatisfactory for the right hon. Lady to announce a policy and then be unable to tell the House whether it requires legislation?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is extending the question period. That is not a point of order on which I can rule, as well he knows.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a point of order that is within your jurisdiction. We all know that, technically, any hon. Member who wishes to raise any matter in the House has to obtain your permission. We all know that, technically, Ministers have to do likewise. We know that Ministers invariably obtain your permission.
During your remarks at the start of the business, Mr. Speaker, and also subsequently, you rightly mentioned the difficulty of the Chair when a statement is made that is known to be controversial and will take up Members' time. You have to protect the interests of Back Benchers. Surely the Government should be advised—if not from the Chair, through the usual channels—that if they spend two or three weeks leaking the statement, as is the case in this instance and in others, they should not choose an Opposition Supply day on which to make the statement. They should be fair and reasonable to the Chair. They should say that they wish to make a statement which they know to be controversial and ask you, Mr. Speaker, to suggest a day that will not be too inconvenient and will not take up Opposition time.

Mr. Speaker: As I have reminded the House many times, the hon. Gentleman and I became Members on the same day. He is an experienced Member. I am grateful to him for what he has said, except that I do not want the responsibility of deciding on which days statements should be made.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You know my warm regard for you, Sir, and that I always approach you with due temerity. May I suggest that there is a somewhat arbitrary element in your deciding a term for questions, which is now an increasing custom of yours, when you cannot know the pressure of the demand from the Floor of the House to ask questions on a specific subject. Is it not a questionable procedure that you have adopted, Sir? I ask that with due regard.

Mr. Speaker: May I say with equal temerity that I was well able to gauge the pressure because it was after I had seen how many Members stood that I estimated how many Members I could call. The points of order have already prevented one Member who wishes to speak in the debate on regional policy from doing so.

Disturbances (Wood Green)

Mr. Reg Race (Wood Green): I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the riots that took place in my constituency of Wood Green last night".
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Morton) has returned to his constituency today following the riots there last night. I am sure that he would have wanted to be associated with this application had it been possible for him to be here.
There were a large number of disturbances in my constituency last night, and 35 shops in Wood Green High Road were looted or had their windows broken. Reports in the press and by various individuals claim that 26 policemen were injured and 50 civilians arrested. Crowds of 400 to 500 youths—black, white and of Mediterranean origin—roamed around Wood Green High Road. A serious situation developed.
We urgently need to debate the disturbances. It is clear from the discussions that I have had in my constituency that the youths involved were trying to emulate what happened in Liverpool, Toxteth, Southall and, possibly, Brixton. The House has a responsibility to make its view plain. It is clear that the youths were attacking authority, for whatever reason. It is clear that background factors were operating in my constituency, as they have in other constituencies—for example, unemployment and housing conditions. The Prime Minister referred to those factors from the Dispatch Box yesterday.
The House has a responsibility to discuss such matters in a sane, civilised and responsible manner to discover precisely the degree of responsibility of those factors in creating the disturbances. Hon. Members have a responsibility to request an urgent debate on the role of the police. I wish to say immediately that I was present at some of the disturbances last night, observing what was taking place. The attitude of the police was good. They displayed considerable restraint and cooled the situation.
We must debate the issue because a number of vital factors are at stake. How many more constituencies will be affected before it is debated and hon. Members can ask Ministers what they intend to do? All that we have heard so far from the Home Secretary are statements about the equipment of the police. That is not good enough. We need an urgent debate to discuss the background to the riots.
I do not wish the House to take no action during the long, hot summer and to be open to sniping from the public for not understanding what is happening and for taking no action. It is the responsibility of the House to debate the issue and the responsibility of the Government to tell us

what they intend to do to prevent further riots and to alleviate the terrible distress and problems in the inner urban areas.
When occurrences such as those at Liverpool. Toxteth, Southall, Brixton and Wood Green arise, we are constantly faced by arguments that they are straightfor-ward race riots. Some argue that the black community is to blame for all our social and economic ills. Because they make such statements, it is incumbent on us to ensure that we discuss the future of race and community relations in the inner urban areas. We must put on record the truth about community relations and the threat to them that exists—sometimes because of the attitudes of leading figures in the community, sometimes because of the attitudes of the police, sometimes because of housing conditions and sometimes because of unemployment.
We must have an urgent debate if we are riot to be accused of misleading the public and of not taking into account the real problems faced by the many hon. Members who represent inner urban areas.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning that he might seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the riots that took place in my constituency of Wood Green last night".lb/>
The House will have listened with anxious concern to the hon. Gentleman. It will recall the exchanges, which are clear in my mind, which took place on Monday. I have a firm impression that the issue is to be debated before we rise for the Summer Recess. We are, of course, in the month of July. No one should be under the misapprehension that the House will not have its chance to discuss the serious issues that have been presented and the disturbances that have caused us such anxiety.
As the House knows, it has instructed me to give no reason for my decision. I listened with concern and anxiety to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

MINIMUM HOUSING STANDARDS (No. 2)

>Mr. David Alton, supported by Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Cyril Smith, Mr. Geraint Howells, Mr. Russell Johnston and Mr. David Penhaligon, presented a Bill to amend the Public Health Act 1936 and the Housing Act 1957 in respect of the minimum amenities and standards required for dwelling houses; to provide powers and duties for the enforcement of such standards; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 180.]

Incitement to Racial Hatred

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I beg to move,
The leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Public Order Act 1936, as amended by the Race Relations Act 1976, so as to provide further for the prevention of incitement to racial hatred.
When I started to move to obtain the leave of the House to bring in the Bill, I did not anticipate the ugly events of recent days. The Bill is pertinent in easing the build-up that can result in the horrific situations that we have witnessed.
The proposed Bill is two-pronged and is designed both to give powers to local authorities to apply to the Home Secretary for selective banning of marches that are likely to stir up racial hatred and to toughen existing restrictions on the dissemination of race hatred propaganda. The Home Secretary has been saying for some time that he has these matters under review. There is no reason why he should not embrace one part or both parts of the Bill as a serious attempt by the House to reduce his burdens and those of the police.
If the Bill is successful, it will relieve greatly one of the more difficult tasks of the police in protecting race hatred marches and other activities. Above all, it will bring some comfort to members of ethnic minorities to see positive steps being taken to protect them instead of hearing specious talk about their equal rights. When anti-black marches are being heavily chaperoned, how can police chiefs expect black people to join the police? They cannot expect that to happen while the police are accompanying white morons chanting "If they are black, send them back." The imposition by the Home Secretary of a series of blanket bans to prevent possible disturbances arising from race hatred demonstrations has raised again the need for revision of the 1936 Act.
Over the past few months the Home Secretary has been closely questioned in the House. I propose in the Bill that the legal basis for combating racism could be more effective through a revision of sections 3 and 5A of the 1936 Act. This view is supported by the Ealing community relations council. Members of different racial groups lawfully settled in the United Kingdom are full and equal citizens with all the rights and obligations that that entails. Discrimination on the arbitrary ground of race and ethnic origin is illegal, as is any public expression of hostility against racial groups.
In a true multiracial and multicultural society, discrimination against or hatred of ethnic minorities would not exist. The verbal abuse of people because of their ethnic or racial features that threatens their physical and mental well-being would be a thing of the past. In public life, in newspapers and in the media it is ridiculous to discuss the repatriation of certain groups merely because of the colour of their skins. Long ago people discussed whether discrimination against Catholics and Jews was justified. That is not exactly the issue that now confronts us, although Fascist and racist leaders base themselves on the barbarity of the Nazis of Germany.
Obviously, the private expression of views cannot be subject to legal control. However, as long ago as 1965 Parliament decided that we would be more civilised and that we would outlaw actions likely to inflict suffering upon people because of the colour of their skin. For some time there has been growing concern about the ineffective

nature of the provisions of the 1936 Act, as amended by the Race Relations Act 1976, on incitment to racial hatred. Secion 5(1)(a) of the 1976 Act provides:
A person commits an offence if—(a) he publishes or distributes written matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting; (b) he uses in a public place or at any public meeting words which are threatening, abusive or insulting, in any case where, having regard to the circumstances, hatred is likely to be stirred up against any racial group in Great Britain by the matter or words in question.
For several reasons, that provision has become deficient in the courts. After the death of Gurdip Cuaggar in Southall in 1976, a man who subsequently went on trial declared "One down, a million to go." The case against him failed in the courts. One can well understand the concern that was felt when it was realised that a man could use words like that and escape conviction for incitement to racial hatred. He was inviting a holocaust.
When Parliament passed the 1976 Act, including the section that amended the 1936 Act, it intended to place the full weight of law behind the promotion of equality of opportunity for ethnic minorities and the outlawing of incitement to racial hatred. It did not intend the section to which I have referred to be ineffective merely because the words "threatening, abusive" were not sufficiently strong. The word "intent" was dropped because it had been shown to be an obstacle to bringing forward successful prosecutions. Jurors and defending and prosecuting counsel have wasted time on mere semantics while missing the essential objective of outlawing incitement to race hatred.
My Bill proposes different words:
A person commits an offence if having regard to all the circumstances he either stirs up hatred against or advocates any discriminatory policy or course of action against any racial group in the United Kingdom through either the publication, public exhibition or distribution of any written, printed or pictorial matter, or through the use of words in any public meeting or broadcast or in any public place.
This suggested change goes further than existing legislation because it adds "pictorial matter" and includes public broadcasts by the media as being forms of presentation that can incite racial hatred.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A Ten-Minute Bill is usually heard without interruption.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am well aware of that, Mr. Speaker. Surely, even on a Ten-Minute Bill it is out of order to read a speech. The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) has scarcely looked up from his text since he began.

Mr. Speaker: We all know that, although no one should read a speech in the House, the copious use of notes is allowed.

Mr. Bidwell: It is most necessary, Mr. Speaker, to have the discipline of notes if one is to keep within the Ten-Minute rule. I am trying to respect the rule. It is plain that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has raised a fictitious and bogus point of order.
The suggested change that is incorporated in my Bill was acknowledged in the Home Secretary's paper of April 1980. The absence of "pictorial matter" allows the printing of cartoons that give grave offence. Some of them are horrifying. It is clear that they are meant to stir up racial


hatred. Besides being offensive to the recipients, such abuse helps to create the motivation for serious physical assaults.
On marches and demonstrations, the mainspring of the Bill would be to put in the hands of local authorities, in concert with the police, the power to approach the Home Secretary for the selective banning of race hatred marches, which lead to further scenes of commotion with the police having to play piggy-in-the-middle.
The objective of the Bill is to drive public expression of racist abuse and public advocacy of racially discriminatory policies out of public life. I call upon all people of good will outside to back it up and upon those who are listening to take note of the mutterings on Conservative Benches which have been heard for the whole time that I have been presenting the Bill.

Mr. John Carlisle: I oppose the motion. I do not believe that the House should be fooled by the emotive headline and the blandishment of the title of the proposed Bill, because it contains some proposals which would be dangerous if the House saw fit to pass it.
This is a two-pronged Bill. It deals with the selective banning of marches and, to a lesser extent, with tougher restrictions on race propaganda. It is right that we should approach it with a great deal of suspicion, knowing the views of the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) and that he comes from a constituency with a large majority of immigrants in the electorate. I represent a constituency which has 20 per cent. immigrants. I shall try to speak for all my constituents, whatever the colour of their skin.

Mr. Ron Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It would appear that the hon. Member is reading his speech.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am anxious that we should proceed to the regional policy debate.

Mr. Carlisle: The House will know that the Select Committee considered selective bans on marches rather than a blanket ban at the moment. It is right that the present blanket ban should be a ban on saint and sinner together. Many Conservative Members would question the right of those people to march at all, because it is a fact that over the last few months those marches have been used as an easy and convenient excuse for political extremists to make trouble. The damage which has been caused by those marchers is apparent for all to see, particularly in London.
I wonder whether the hon. Member realises the consequences of his Bill and the consequences of selectively banning marches. Does he realise that any organisation would find it easy to purport under one name to put forward a march—even giving notice—which was then banned and then parade under another name? Does he also realise that, if organisations took violent opposition to a march which was due to take place and that march was then cancelled, a protesting organisation could march under another name as triumphant victors? Does he realise that if the selective ban took place, it is, in effect—

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Apart from the fact that the hon. Member is reading his speech badly, would he be prepared

to declare to the House whether he has ever had membership of any of those dubious organisations on the right of politics apart from the Conservative Party? —

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order. He is merely delaying progress.

Mr. Carlisle: The real issue which I must take with the hon. Member for Southall is his proposal that local authorities should leapfrog over police in the decision on whether marches should take place. That would leave the decision open to vile political bias. If the local authority is to make the decision, we all know that not all local authorities are completely impartial.
In his evidence to the Select Committee, the hon. Member said that he felt that the Greater London Council should take over control of the police. It sends chills clown the spines of Conservative Members to think that a man such as Ken Livingstone, after his disgraceful comments in Southall about the action of the police, should have some authority on whether people should be allowed to march. The Bill is a total criticism of the police.
The police are far better informed than any local authority on whether a procession should take place. They have a special knowledge of peacekeeping, as outlined and admitted by the Select Commitee. They know their resources which would be needed to correct any measures which took place. They know where the dangers anti trouble which might affect them arise. They are financially and politically accountable to the local magistrates and to the Home Secretary. To relegate them, as the Bill proposes, to the role of consultant would lessen police authority and would be a complete appeasement of the Left wing. At this time, when matters are delicate and when the Home Secretary, with great courage and resolve, faces a terrible problem, he needs, as do the police, every strengthening from the House.
With regard to the phrase "racial hatred", I believe that it would be in the interests of the House and of time merely to say that the hon. Member gave his usual rhetoric. There is no guarantee that any change in the wording of the Bill or the many posturings of the Commission for Racial Equality would help relations between the two communities. Damage might be done. The essence of the Bill refers to ethnic populations, which is discriminatory.
The hon. Member may have had good intentions in bringing forward the Bill. He has a wealth of experience in these matters. However, the House should not be fooled. This is only a mask for Left-wing, Socialist doctrine. I ask the House to reject the motion.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business): —

The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 38.

Division No. 256]
[4.35 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Biggs-Davison, John


Anderson, Donald
Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)


Ashton, Joe
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Atkinson, H. (H'gey,)
Bradley, Tom


Bagier, Gordon AT.
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buchan, Norman


Beith, A. J.
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bidwell, Sydney
Canavan, Dennis






Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Hon Greville


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
John, Brynmor


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Craigen, J. M.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cryer, Bob
Kerr, Russell


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kilfedder, James A.


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Kinnock, Neil


Dalyell, Tam
Lambie, David


Davidson, Arthur
Lamond, James


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Leighton, Ronald


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Dempsey, James
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dewar, Donald
McCartney, Hugh


Dixon, Donald
McElhone, Frank


Dobson, Frank
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Dormand, Jack
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Douglas, Dick
McKelvey, William


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McNally, Thomas


Dubs, Alfred
McWilliam, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Magee, Bryan


Dunn, James A.
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


English, Michael
Mikardo, Ian


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Evans, John (Newton)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Ewing, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Faulds, Andrew
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Flannery, Martin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
O'Halloran, Michael


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Neill, Martin


Forrester, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foulkes, George
Palmer, Arthur


Freud, Clement
Park, George


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Parker, John


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Prescott, John


George, Bruce
Race, Reg


Gourlay, Harry
Richardson, Jo


Graham, Ted
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Robertson, George


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Rooker, J. W.


Hardy, Peter
Sandelson, Neville


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Sheerman, Barry


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Haynes, Frank
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Home Robertson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Homewood, William
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Huckfield, Les
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Soley, Clive





Spriggs, Leslie
White, Frank R.


Stallard, A. W.
Whitehead, Phillip


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wigley, Dafydd


Steen, Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Straw, Jack
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Winnick, David


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Tilley, John
Wright, Sheila


Torney, Tom
Young, David (Bolton E)


Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.



Wainwright, R. (Colne V)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watkins, David
Mr. John Sever and


Watson, John
Mr. Stanley Newens.


Weetch, Ken





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Body, Richard
Molyneaux, James


Brotherton, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Browne, John (Winchester)
Morgan, Geraint


Burden, Sir Frederick
Myles, David


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Neubert, Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Cockeram, Eric
Porter, Barry


Colvin, Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Costain, Sir Albert
Proctor, K. Harvey


Dover, Denshore
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Eggar, Tim
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Shepherd, Richard


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Speller, Tony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stokes, John


Goodhew, Victor
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Winterton, Nicholas


Holland, Philip (Carlton)



Kaberry, Sir Donald
Tellers for the Noes:


Kimball, Sir Marcus
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook and


Knight, Mrs Jill
Mr. Christopher Murphy.


Marlow, Tony

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. Clinton Davis, Mr. Christopher Price, Mr. Thomas Cox, Mr. Stanley Newens, Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Russell Kerr, Mr. Clive Soley, Mrs Renee Short, and Mr. George Park.

INCITEMENT TO RACIAL HATRED

Mr. Sydney Bidwell accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Public Order Act 1936, as amended by the Race Relations Act 1976, so as to provide further for the prevention of incitement to racial hatred: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 181.]

Orders of the Day — Regional Policy

Mr. Eric G. Varley: I beg to move,
That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for pursuing disastrous economic and social policies which have reduced overall financial assistance to the regions, crippled local authorities and increased unemployment to intolerable levels in every region of the United Kingdom.
When we in the Opposition decided to use some of our Supply time for this debate, we particularly wanted to focus attention on the massive rise in unemployment in every region of the United Kingdom. We were surprised, therefore, that the Government regarded it as exclusively a Department of Industry debate, although naturally we cannot determine who speaks for the Government in response to our motion. In normal circumstances, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who is, of course, here, would offer his assessment of industrial affairs when the Secretary of State for Industry opened for the Government.
In a debate on this subject, it is instructive to look back at what the Conservatives promised at the last general election. On this, as on so many other issues, the Government would no doubt prefer us not to do so. Fortunately, there are still in existence a few copies of the Conservative 1979 election manifesto. No doubt, they would like to take up all those copies and turn the
manifesto into a non-document, just as they tried to turn the former Conservative Prime Minister into a non-person.
I have retained my copy of that manifesto. On the subject under debate today, it says:
Too much emphasis has been placed on attempts to preserve existing jobs".
I think that the whole House would acquit the Government of any guilt on that charge. The manifesto continues, however:
We need to concentrate more on the creation of conditions in which new, more modern, more secure, better paid jobs come into existence. This is the best way of helping the unemployed and those threatened with the loss of their jobs in the future.
What conditions have the Government created? They are more than two years of historically high interest rates and a policy on exchange rates surpassing anything that we have known in the past, pursued with such incompetence that the prolonged period when they were unacceptably high has now been followed by a collapse in the rate of the pound against the dollar, with the Bank of England recently moving in to provide support. After 26 months, the internal inflation rate is still higher than the rate that the Prime Minister inherited from the Labour Government and may now begin to rise even higher following the collapse of the pound against the dollar. There has been a reduction of 18 per cent. in manufacturing investment in the Government's first full year and an overall reduction of 12 per cent. There has been a reduction in industrial production of 13·2 per cent. since the Government came to power and a devastating reduction of 17 per cent. in production by manufacturing industry.
The latest official figures published this week by the Central Statistical Office show that living standards are now falling, that personal incomes rose less in the first quarter of this year than at any time in the last 10 years, and that the increase in average earnings of those at work has been almost neutralised by the reduction in incomes of the additional number of people thrown out of work. Sales in the shops are being funded more and more by savings and savings in relation to incomes are falling.
That is what the Government have done to carry out their manifesto promise to create
conditions in which new, more modern, more secure, better paid jobs
can he brought into existence. It is therefore not surprising that the Government have also broken their pledge on industrial aid for the regions. The manifesto stated that
 "government can help to ease industrial change in those regions dependent on older, declining industries. We do not propose sudden, sharp changes in the measures now in force.
When the Government came to office, they claimed that they would concentrate regional assistance to make it more effective. That is the message of the amendment that the Secretary of State will be moving later. It is, however, a grotesque distortion of the English language, because on the Government's interpretation the word "concentrate" simply means "reduce". They have reduced the areas of the country which qualify for regional assistance from about 40 per cent. to 25 per cent. They have reduced regional development grants in development areas from 20 per cent. to 15 per cent. They have failed to increase grants in special development areas and are wiping them out in the intermediate areas. Although the Government claimed that in the areas whose intermediate status is to be removed they were easing the transition by not ending that status until next year, regional development grants were abolished immediately. If there were any potential investors for the assisted areas, the Government scared them off straight away with the Secretary of State's statement on 17 July.
One of the areas affected by the removal of intermediate area status is Warringon, whose regional policies the Conservative candidate has no doubt considered long and deeply over the past two years in the traffic jams while driving his No. 13 bus down Finchley Road.
The emasculation of the National Enterprise Board has been a further blow to areas losing intermediate area status. [Interruption.] I do not know what the Secretary of State for Wales is saying. If he wishes to come to the Dispatch Box and take part in the debate, he is welcome to do so. I do not have time to consider in detail his record in Wales, but, given the destruction that has happened in Wales, he certainly has no reason to sit there and chatter. Perhaps I should, indeed, deal with Wales later in my speech.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): I was merely commenting on the extraordinary contempt in the Labour Party for bus drivers as candidates. That is, no doubt, part of the new line being put over by the Labour Party.

Mr. Varley: My comment had nothing to do with that. I know, however, that the Secretary of State for Wales has nothing to be proud of in his record of giving regional or, indeed, any kind of assistance to Wales, but I shall return to him later.

Mr. Donald Anderson: It may help my right hon. Friend to know that in March 1980 the Welsh Office estimate of unemployment was 125,000 at its peak. It is now more than 150,000 and rising. That shows the extent to which the Government are wholly out of touch with and ignorant of the chaos that they are causing.

Mr. Varley: I entirely agree. It is amazing that the Secretary of State for Wales dares to show his face at a debate such as this.
Under the Labour Government, the National Enterprise Board opened an office in Liverpool, where I insisted that it be located. Under the Secretary of State for Industry's new guidelines, however, the regional role of the National Enterprise Board has been narrowed to the assisted areas, which, again, will exclude Warrington. The Government amendment to be moved today claims that
financial assistance … in the regions continues at high levels".
What they describe as concentration of regional assistance, however, has been a 25 per cent. reduction in money spent on regional development grants, a 30 per cent. cut in regional and general industrial support, and a cut of nearly 50 per cent. in selective assistance to industry in assisted areas. All those figures are taken from the White Paper published on 10 March this year, the same day as the Budget.
The impact on the deprived and declining areas of the country has been shattering. With the grave and serious exception of the West Midlands, the biggest job losses have occurred in regions where unemployment was already high. Comparing last month's unemployment figures with those in May 1979, the following frightening statistics emerge. The unemployment rate has risen in Yorkshire and Humberside from 5·4 to 11·9 per cent., in the North-West from 7·3 to 13·5 per cent., in Scotland and Wales from about 7½ to more than 13 per cent., in the Northern region from 7·9 to 14·9 per cent. and in Northern Ireland from 10·6 to 18 per cent. Again, some areas have suffered particularly severely.
Since the Government came into office, unemployment in the country as a whole has risen by 106 per cent. In Warrington, it has risen by a devastating 180 per cent., nearly twice the national rate. When Labour left office, unemployment in Warrington, at 5 per cent., was below the national average. It is now well above the national average at 12·8 per cent.
The latest figures in that town now show that unemployment stands at 8,737. The number of vacancies is only 472. Therefore, in that once-prosperous town 19 unemployed people are now fighting for each available vacancy. What is more, it will get very much worse throughout the country.
The Manpower Services Commission, the Government's body, forecasts that by 1983 unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside will be 12·4 per cent., 16 per cent. in the Northern region, 16·3 per cent. in Scotland and—if the Secretary of State for Wales is listening—17·9 per cent. in Wales. That is the forecast of the MSC based on the Government's unchanged policies.
There is another region of the country that cannot be found on any map—the region of the young. When the Government came into office, only 9 per cent. of all young people under 18 were unemployed. The latest figure is 19 per cent., and the MSC forecasts that by this time in 1983,

68 per cent. of all young people under 18 will be out of a job. That will be the Prime Minister's achievement after four years in office. She will have thrown two-thirds of our young people under 18 on to the dole.
The Government's achievement in the country as a whole is bad, but the situation in Warrington proportionately dwarfs the national increase. The number of unemployed under-18s in Warrington has been multiplied more than fivefold since the Government came into office. In May 1979, the figure stood at 214. Today, it is 1,106. A total of 2,939 Warrington boys and girls become eligible to leave school this month. What prospects do they have?
The Secretary of State for Industry is to speak next. I am told that when he went to Paris a short time ago to meet his opposite number in the last French Government, he said that the object of both of them should be to make their jobs unnecessary. It is true that British workers would have been far better off had the office of Secretary of State for Industry been left vacant during the past two years. In fact, some people would say that to all intents and purposes it has been, but they are not the people who have had to put up with the muddling and the meddling of the Secretary of State. An outstanding chairman of the Post Office was driven to resignation by the Secretary of State's arbitrary borrowing limits. The whole of the NEB was driven to resign. A total of £2 million was spent to hire a chairman for the British Steel Corporation, with the job specification of taking the axe to the British steel industry. Unreal targets and unfair financial limits were forced on British Shipbuilders, forcing up unemployment in some of the country's most vulnerable areas.
All that is bad enough, but it is far worse than that, because in a debate on regional policy two years ago the Secretary of State offered this prospectus:
I think that the House will agree with the proposition that, in general, the assisted areas will thrive only if the economy as a whole thrives. It is intensely in the interests of the assisted areas that the economy as a whole should thrive. That is why the Government's policy of improving the economic climate to encourage decision-taking, risk-taking and enterprise is so important to the assisted, as well as to the non-assisted, areas."—[Official Report, 24 July 1979; Vol. 971, c. 367.]
Had the right hon. Gentleman offered that kind of prospectus as a business man to a company meeting, no doubt he would now be assisting the fraud squad in its inquiries.
But the Secretary of State for Industry made yet another extraordinary statement about regional policy also in July 1979. It seems that whenever we discuss regional policy, the right hon. Gentleman is afflicted with midsummer madness. He said:
I must emphasise that regional differences will not be reduced simply by redistributing money from taxpayers".—[Official Report, 17 July 1979; Vol. 970, c. 1307.]
I suspect that he will say the same this afternoon, because words like that are included in the amendment.
However, the Government are redistributing huge sums from the taxpayer. They are taking billions of pounds just to fund unemployment, and there is no less cost-effective way of using taxpayers' money.
I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to supply two sets of figures for each region of Great Britain. If it is difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to do so now, perhaps the Under-Secretary will do so later. First, how much is the right hon. Gentleman's Department spending on regional assistance? Secondly, how much are the Department of


Employment and the Supplementary Benefits Commission paying to the victims of this non-regional policy, and how much tax revenue is being forgone by the Exchequer?
No wonder the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) describes the Government's policy as "incomprehensible", because it makes no sense. No wonder he describes the impact on the social system as "disastrous".
The Conservative Party likes to prate on about law and order as though in some way it was their proprietor. The greatest enemy to law and order is unemployment, and the greatest producers of unemployment are the Government. The right hon. Member for Sidcup is right to demand a change in policy. We need a change in national economic policy. We need a genuine and properly focused regional policy, not half-baked enterprise zones which, even in the unlikely event that they will fulfil the Government's optimistic hopes of producing jobs, will produce only a tiny proportion equal to only a fraction of one week's redundancies. We need positive policies, not the panicky fumblings to which the Government are now reduced.
We had a pathetic display from the Prime Minister at yesterday's Question Time, which showed that she has little idea of what is going on, and even less idea of what to do about it. The humiliation that awaits her constituent in Warrington a week tomorrow is only a foretaste of what she can expect when the whole country gets a chance to deliver its verdict.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House, noting that Government expenditure on financial assistance to industry in the regions continues at high levels, supports the Government's policy of concentrating regional assistance on the areas of greatest need; notes that regional assistance is provided at the expense of individual and corporate taxpayers throughout the whole of the United Kingdom; and believes that Government interventions are less important than the efforts of existing and new managements and their workforces to be competitive and so to secure prosperity and fuller employment in the regions.'.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) made a relatively brief speech. I hope to copy him because this is a short debate. He went through the usual catalogue of unemployment rises—legitimate in our debates—but it would have been far better had it been accompanied by some serious analysis of why successive Governments, not just the present Government, have presided over massively rising unemployment throughout the last 15 to 20 years. The right hon. Gentleman's speech would have been better if he had given us a serious alternative to the policy found in the amendment to the Opposition's motion. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not think it practical simply to suggest that, given a bit of good will, the unemployed could be put to work. What would they work at? Would they work voluntarily, or does the right hon. Gentleman have some form of compulsion in mind? What would they make? Would the Government have to identify the market that they would serve? Where would the money come from?
It is simplistic to a degree to imagine that for the cost of unemployment benefit people could be put to work, with all the overheads, administration, raw materials, transport and costs that would be involved.

Mr. John Evans: rose—

Sir Keith Joseph: I shall not give way as I wish to be brief and to allow as much time as possible for hon. Members to speak.
The tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that the only difference between the two parties was their intentions. He implied that the Opposition had good intentions towards unemployment and that the Government did not. If it were simply a matter of good intentions, why did unemployment rise when the Labour Party was in office? It is true that unemployment has risen by about 102 per cent. since the general election. I admit that the peak of unemployment has probably not been reached. It will peak, flatten and then begin to fall. However, we must be approaching the end of rising unemployment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The figures show that from month to month in the past four months the rate of increase in the number of registered unemployed has declined sharply. That is solid evidence. It does not follow that one can reliably depend on an extrapolation of the same trend. However, month by month for four months we have seen a declining rate of increase in unemployment.
Under this Government unemployment has risen by 102 per cent. That is a depressing figure. However, the right hon. Gentleman spoke as if the facts under a Conservative Government were far worse than the facts that appertained when the Labour Party was in office and when the right hon. Gentleman had my job. When measured on the same basis—from the lowest point to the highest point during five years of office—unemployment under the Labour Government rose not by 102 per cent. but by 165 per cent.
Given the problems that both Governments faced, should not the right hon. Gentleman have a little humility? It is a question not of which party cares more but of which party can make available to a Government of any colour the analysis of and cure for rising unemployment. For 20 years Britain has suffered from rising unemployment.
This debate focuses on the regions. It is a truism that the regions do better in terms of jobs when the country does better. It is also a sad truism that we are trying to help much the same regions in terms of geographical area as our fathers tried to help 40 or 50 years ago. So far, the treatment administered by both parties has not been notably successful.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It has been successful.

Sir Keith Joseph: I am speaking in general terms. My hon. Friend has made a legitimate correction. Treatment appears to have brought some benefit to some places, but in general the assisted area map is much the same as that found 40 to 50 years ago.

Mr. Tom Ellis: rose—

Sir Keith Joseph: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield charged the Government with departing from their manifesto commitment. We promised that there would be no sudden change in regional policy. We have not made a sudden change. We have given three years' notice of the change in status and we are keeping to that. Moreover, it was obviously sensible to concentrate assisted area status help and to reduce it from the 44 per cent. of population covered when the Labour Party left office to the 25 per cent. of the population covered today. No hon. Member who sits for a constituency in a special


development area can disagree privately, whatever he may say publicly, with that judgment. There will be more help available to assisted areas from incoming or expanding industry, the smaller the proportion of the map that is covered by them.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Sir Keith Joseph: I am sorry, but I shall not give way as I have refused to give way to other hon. Members. In fairness, I must ask my hon. Friend to accept that.
We have reduced the number of areas being helped and we have concentrated the help given by taxpayers—admittedly a reduced amount—on those areas that are most in need. However, we have kept the proportion of investment met by the taxpayer in the worst-off areas the same. The motion suggests that our policies are crippling local authorities. On the contrary, some local authorities are crippling firms and, consequently, losing jobs in their areas through their rate increases.
The right hon. Gentleman teased me, the Government and, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has taken the trouble to come to the Chamber. The Government have mustered far more right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Bench than the Opposition have mustered on their Front Bench. The right hon. Gentleman teased us and said that we had not fulfilled our declared intention of creating new and more modem jobs. However, there is tangible evidence that such a change is being made in Wales. Wales is visibly changing from a narrow industrial, agricultural and mineral base into—[HON. MEMBERS: "A desert."]—an area with a much broader industrial base. I am delighted to say that the reputation of Welsh management and of Welsh work forces is such that many overseas companies are moving into Wales. Their inquiries show that there is substantial interest in Wales.
The right hon. Gentleman not only ignored the unemployment figures that prevailed when his party was in office but spoke as if regional grants and help from the taxpayer were magic wands. Objective studies, carried out not by political parties but by academics, commissioned by the Department of Industry—which the right hon. Gentleman once presided over—show that, at most, regional policy produced 20,000 more jobs a year in the regions in the late 1960s. That is not a small figure. In the early 1970s the figure was 11,000 more jobs a year.
Hon. Members should realise that those were extra jobs not in the United Kingdom but in the regions. They may well have been redistributed from other parts of the country, particularly from the West Midlands. That area has changed from the powerhouse of the economy into something nearer the industrial desert that Opposition Members refer to in connection with Wales.
Industrial development certificate control—which we have relaxed—steered jobs elsewhere that might have gone to the Midlands and to the South. Those jobs would have made those areas so busy and prosperous that, in the interest of employees, work would have had to go to the regions. In addition, raising the taxes or borrowing the money to pay for the regional grants must have destroyed other jobs in the economy, including jobs in the regions.
The regional grant system may do some marginal good, but at a cost. The Opposition and those of my hon. Friends who lay such enormous emphasis on whether their

constituency comes in an assisted area, and, if so, in what grade of assisted area, misunderstand the importance of regional policy—whether under a Labour or a Conservative Government.
My hon. Friends and I in the Department of Industry receive many delegations, all sincere, trying to persuade us to change the status of their areas. We do not begrudge the time involved. We try to study objectively all cases made and come to decisions within our statutory requirements. However, regional policy is based on relativities between one area and another. It is the relative economic health of any area compared with all the other areas that must be assessed, difficult though that is, in deciding where to use taxpayers' money fairly and effectively.
I want to make a point that I do not think has been made before. All the money made available in regional policy—the regional development grant and the special financial assistance—amounts, one would assume from the emphasis put on it, to a vast proportion of manufacturing industry's expenditure. The fact is, however, that that expenditure amounts to between 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. of the wage costs of industry in the regions. That means that if an area loses some form of assisted status and its entitlement to more or less of the grant, a relatively small adjustment in productivity to reduce by an equivalent amount unit labour costs would make that area just as competitive and would help as much as if it had continued to receive money from the taxpayer.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am trying to complete my argument as quickly as I can. I shall not give way.
It is true that by regional aids this country can occasionally attract mobile investment from overseas. That mobile investment is valuable for this country. It brings technology, skills of management and, possibly, access to markets, which benefit this country. It must be at cost, however, because the money to pay the grant that is often payable must be raised by increasing borrowing or increasing taxes, but it is a legitimate use at a time when all industrialised countries compete with each other for mobile investment. I recognise the significance of it. We must also recognise that in so far as regional policy applies to industry, it is largely a case of redistributing industry that must expand somewhere and that we persuade to go to the regions. That is valuable. I am not underestimating it. But it does not mean net new jobs for the country.
The question that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield should have asked and should have tried to answer is: Why have successive Governments, including the Labour Government, experienced such rapidly rising unemployment? My answer to that question is a view that the House will have heard me put before. For many years our manufacturing industry has become less competitive. It is not a question of inadequate demand. For most of the past 20 years, while unemployment has been rising in cycle after cycle, demand has been high and rising. Even now, consumer demand has held up remarkably well. Investment demand has been cut, largely because wages have eaten into funds intended for investment. Consumer demand has held up well. Our share of our market has been falling for years because, on average, manufacturing industry has been less and less competitive.
Against this analysis—the right hon. Gentleman offers no alternative—where will more jobs come from? There is a limited amount of internationally mobile industry. We try to put it in the best place. There is a limited scope for expansion of jobs with existing firms. We hope that we are experiencing rising productivity—we think that we are. That means that many firms will be able to produce more without much increase in labour. However, we must realise that while some firms will expand, others will contract.
The Government believe that there is scope for new jobs in new firms and in small firms that may expand. We do not want to exaggerate the contribution that they will make, but they are significant contributors. The Government are striving hard to improve the climate and encourage the birth rate of new small businesses and expansion of existing small businesses. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will explain later, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he is giving special attention to that whole range of issues.
All these matters—the possibility of attracting mobile international investment, the scope for redistributing existing firms as they expand, the benefit of new firms and expanding small firms—are still not enough. To limit our hopes for the regions would be to take too static a view of our prospects. We must encourage the regions not only to compete for the limited pool of expansion by way of grant but to seek to increase the rate of expansion. Perhaps I should explain what I mean. This subject is rarely discussed in a debate on either unemployment or regional policy. There is real scope for expanding the markets of existing firms and enabling firms to price themselves back into markets that they have either lost or have not yet had. The route to that happy possibility is that people should endeavour to make viable and profitable projects that at present are not viable or profitable by their behaviour or their undertaking to behave.

Mr. Varley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Keith Joseph: I should prefer to finish my argument. I am attempting to put an argument. I am not maintaining that changes of behaviour in management and work forces can recapture or capture markets in every case. Of course I am not. There are occasions when we have lost markets or are not winning markets because of patchy management or because of work force attitudes. The House will agree, either publicly or privately, that overmanning and restrictive labour practices have been, and to a large extent still are, the bane in our economy.

Mr. Varley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Keith Joseph: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is being unfair. I have only a small amount still to say, but I do not want to be rude to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Varley: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's reluctance to give way and I shall be quick. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument and his sincere ideological belief, but what does he say not only to me and to my right hon. and hon. Friends but to his right hon. Friend the hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who, last Thursday, described the Government's policies as disastrous and incomprehensible to both sides of industry? He should answer not only our charges but the charges made by a former Tory Prime Minister.

Sir Keith Joseph: It must be true that my right hon. Friends and I have failed effectively to explain the analysis underlying our policies and arguments. What I am saying now I do not believe can be contradicted, even by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
We are discussing unemployment in the regions, so let us examine what leads firms and individuals to set up industrial or commercial activities or to expand those that already exist. The answer must be that it is the hope of profit. The risk funds that they invest come generally from pension funds or insurance companies, or from individual investors. It would be very wrong if investment were to take place without a prospect of a profit. All of the people in Britain, after all, are interested in the sensible investment of the funds that will be used to pay their pensions or are being used now to fund their existing pensions. I would not have thought that there was any dispute about that.
Where will expansion occur? It will occur where there is a prospect of profit. Where will there be a prospect of profit? The answer is where good management—not to be taken for granted, but there is plenty in Britain—and an adaptable, productive, co-operative labour force come together. [Interruption.] I hear the interjection "Not textiles." I am trying to make a general case that is true even of textiles. I said earlier that there are industrial situations in which, for reasons of design or of the international division of labour—[Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will listen. I accept that there are situations in industries, sub-sectors and even firms in which superior design abroad or the international division of labour, or barriers, tariffs or unfair trading practices, does not make what I am saying immediately practical. However, hon. Members should also accept that there are very large sectors of the economy in which these propositions that I am trying to maintain operate.
If a group of people in a region really want to increase jobs in that region—and there are thousands of such groups who sincerely want to do so—why do they not contemplate persuading the work forces, through the unions, to seek to help those who are making investment decisions by offering co-operation—it exists in many firms—high productivity and the prospect of competitiveness and profit to activities which now, under present assumptions about manning and productivity, are just not viable or likely to be profitable?
People in Britain, under the influence mainly of unions and some work force representatives, have in many cases priced themselves out of jobs. I am suggesting that it is not sensible for regions to depend entirely upon persuading Governments to provide more money from the taxpayer. I am not denying that there is a contribution from the taxpayer, but there could be a much bigger contribution from the work habits, the work effectiveness and the cooperation, and the reputation for those things, that a region can win for itself or lose for itself.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sir Keith Joseph: No.
When investors or possible expanders are contemplating whether there is a profitable market for them, let them think at once "Yes, let us go to this town or that town, or to this region or to that region, because they have a reputation for co-operation and intelligent enlightened self-interest."
There is evidence—I shall not give names, because that would be unfair—that investment decisions are being made in some cases only because in the regions the work force in a particular area has shown by its attitudes and performance that it is willing to make profitable and viable activities that otherwise would not have been profitable and viable.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

Sir Keith Joseph: No, I shall not give way.
I do not often make appeals to the press. However, I think that the leader writers and the editors of the very vigorous newspapers in the regions ought to realise that the future of jobs in their regions does not depend only upon how much those regions can win from the taxpayers. It depends also, to a large extent, on the performance and the reputation of those regions and on the work forces, managements and entrepreneurs of those regions, too. I hope that we shall have more investment in Britain, because the regions accept that there is that scope for their own action. I believe that from this House a message could go out to the representatives of all the work forces suggesting that there is a form of self-help that they can practise. I am not over-generalising. I am not saying that this will serve every firm or every sector of industry. I am saying that there are great prospects.
Because the Opposition's motion is so party-political and so narrow, and so ignorant in the light of their experience when in office, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will reject the Opposition motion and accept the Government's amendment.

Mr. John Evans: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) said, the background to the debate is the appalling level of unemployment in almost every region. Another element in the debate is the serious damage which has flown to the regions from the Secretary of State's Industry Act 1980. The other major purpose of the debate is to show once again that the Government have no regional policy. An important element in the Secretary of State's appalling lecture is that he is not even interested in regional policy, and, frankly, he does not accept that a regional policy will work.
It is significant that the general impression left with hon. Members when they listen to the Secretary of State—here I mean no disrespect to him—is that he should be in a college lecturing students and not prattling on in this House with some of the nonsense that he has produced today—blaming the trade unions, the work forces, the oil price rises and virtually everyone bar himself for the appalling damage that he has inflicted upon Britain's economy.
No one will be surprised if I concentrate my arguments on Warrington. That is hardly surprising. Over 50,000 of my electors live in Warrington, and over 65,000 of my electorate are in the Warrington travel-to-work area.
In the Warrington by-election, the Government's record on unemployment and their economic and regional strategy are very much on trial. The Government will suffer a resounding defeat. I attach no significance to the fact that the Conservative candidate is a bus driver. Many

excellent people drive buses. I feel a great deal of sympathy for the poor man who has been drafted in to defend the Government's appalling record. The real candidates in the Warrington by-election are the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Industry, their appalling Government and their appalling policies.
I throw a challenge to the Secretary of State to go to Warrington in the next few days and to give the electorate of Warrington the lecture that he has given the House today. Let him see the response that he will get from the people there—people who have lost their jobs over the past two years as a result of his Government and their policies. I shall return shortly to the job losses in Warrington.
I understand that the Prime Minister will not go to that constituency. I believe that the right hon. Lady believes that it is not normal for Prime Ministers to intervene in by-elections. But that does not apply to the Secretary of State for Industry. Employment and unemployment and regional policies and the lack of regional policies are the key elements in that by-election. This is the first time for almost two years that a seat has been fought in such a region, that the Government's policies have been put under the microscope and that people have been invited to pass judgment on them. I therefore challenge the Secretary of State to go to Warrington and to give the electorate the reasons for his policy or lack of policy.
The Secretary of State accused my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield of failing to give alternatives. Some hon. Members remember, although the Secretary of State would dearly like us to forget, the campaign that the right hon. Gentleman fought in the last general election when he and his party issued huge posters up and down the country saying that Labour was not working and that 1·3 million were out of work. Many people were "conned" by those posters and assumed that unemployment would be reduced if a Tory Government were returned. They now find that unemployment has doubled in two years. The Secretary of State, with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment, has been forced to admit repeatedly from the Dispatch Box that unemployment will rise.

Sir Keith Joseph: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman even wants to know why unemployment has risen so strongly. Does he not recognise that by the wage claims of 1980, following upon the pay control of the Labour Government, scores of thousands of people priced themselves out of jobs?

Mr. Evans: I hope that the Secretary of State notes that in giving way to him I showed him more courtesy than he showed me. Unlike Conservative Members, I spent considerable periods out of work in my native Tyneside. It is nonsense for the Secretary of State to accuse working people of being opposed to change, indulging in restrictive practices and pursuing policies that restrict new investment and new industry. This shows that the Secretary of State has not even studied the history of British working people since the war.
The right hon. Gentleman has only to see areas like the North-West and the North-East, where whole stretches of industry—shipbuilding, the coal industry and the textile industry—have been removed due to the change in world demand, to realise how the work forces in those areas cooperated with new employers to introduce new industry and new technology. Working people have always been


prepared to change. They have had to change throughout their lives. It is disgraceful for the Secretary of State to stand at the Dispatch Box and make that statement repeatedly.
I make no complaint that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is a busy man and that he has important functions to fulfil. I only hope that he got my message before leaving the Chamber.

Mr. John Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman has gone to Warrington.

Mr. Evans: I hope that my hon. Friend is right. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has taken up my challenge by catching the next train to Warrington.
I should like to discuss the need for regional policy. Some hon. Members, on both sides of the House, have tried for many years to argue the need for a coherent regional strategy. We have tried to argue that if one is serious about these subjects one has obviously to work to a basic plan. It was evident from the Secretary of State's speech that he has abandoned all hope of any plans and that he is banking on such nonsenses as enterprise zones, the odd urban development corporation and a bit of money from the Home Office for inner city areas to solve some of the major and, as the last few days have unfortunately shown, dangerous situations that exist in many areas.
A classic example of the error of Government policy exists for all to see in Warrington. As events have shown over the past 10 to 15 years, Warrington is a natural growth point. The expertise, experience and drive of Warrington new town in attracting industry to the area over the past few months have been first-class.
It has been shown that the development of road and rail networks and airports has brought prosperity to regions. Although far from moving ahead, Warrington had been able to maintain employment, despite all the problems created in the traditional industries and despite the effect of natural rundown. That was due to the expertise, drive, care and planning devoted to the area around Warrington. There has now been a substantial increase in unemployment.
One factor that the Secretary of State and the majority of the Tory Party will not recognise is that a natural growth point is crucial to any regional policy. Warrington is a natural growth point. One would have assumed that any sensible, rational Secretary of State would have recognised the value of a natural growth point and would have put money behind it. The Secretary of State's answer is to remove all assistance from Warrington.
The right hon. Gentleman argues that crude unemployment statistics alone do not warrant assisted area status. I am waiting, as I have waited for two years, for the Secretary of State to inform the House of the other elements of his regional policy. Does the Minister who will be replying to the debate intend to inform the House of the elements of the Government's regional policy strategy? The only element that I can see is the crude unemployment figures. There is no rational analysis of emigration from areas, immigration into areas, or the shortage of skills in areas. All these are factors that affect the decisions of firms to go to certain areas.
There are some areas—Warrington is again a classic example—that can offer a wide variety of skills. Even now, we are told by some Tory Ministers, there is a

shortage of certain skills in certain trades. A place like Warrington can offer plenty of skills. Yet we gel nothing from the Government. We get an increase in unemployment. The announcement today by the Minister for Consumer Affairs is another kick in the teeth for Warrington. One of the largest gas cooker factories in the country, TI New World, is situated in Warrington, producing nearly 20 per cent. of the market in gas cookers. We know that there will be massive redundancies in the TI factory. The Tory candidate must be delighted when he hears the news coming from the House of Commons that further redundancies face the work force in Warrington.
I listed during a recent debate on the North-West no fewer than 17 firms that had declared over 4,000 redundancies in Warrington in the last 18 months. It was significant that the redundancies in Warrington all occurred in industrial manufacturing and mainly in the private sector. All were good firms with a good reputation. They were turning out good products. However, because of Government policies, they face closure in some cases or redundancies in others. It is a tragedy that so many towns in the regions should be left only with the platitudes of the Secretary of State for Industry, often aided and abetted by even more platitudes and crocodile tears from the Prime Minister, about the problems of the unemployed.
I asked the Secretary of State to give way when he posed the rhetorical question to my right hon. Friend "What will the unemployed do?" after my right hon. Friend had made the point about the growth in unemployment. The question "What will the unemployed do?" sums up the attitude of the Tory Party. I should like to pose a question to the Tory Party that I hope will be answered honestly. Like every area, Warrington has terrifying problems of youth unemployment. When the Secretary of State for Employment comes to the House to propose schemes to give all youngsters places in youth opportunities schemes, will Conservative Members have the guts to pose the question "What will they do?" That is the question that should be asked.
The Government have no policy. They are now doing what they used to accuse the Labour Government of doing. They are simply throwing money at the problem, hoping that the problem will somehow go away. The problem will go away only when we have a Government who recognise the absolute necessity for regional policies that are meaningful and who take account of the terrifying problems that exist in many areas where long-established industries are going to the wall and nothing is offered in their place. It is hardly surprising that there have been outbreaks of violence recently. No one condones them, but when young people react violently in our inner urban areas all that we get from the Government are platitudes arid cries about law and order.
I have a final question for the Government. What about some justice for the young people who recognise that they have no hope as long as this incompetent Government are in office? I hope that the Warrington by-election, when the Tory canditate will be humiliated, will be the signal for a massive revolt by our people, who will put the Government where they belong—into the dustbin of history.

Mr. Keith Best: It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) does not make


his electioneering speeches in Warrington instead of forcing us to suffer them. He should have directed his remarks to the serious issues raised by the debate.
Until we heard the right hon. Gentleman's speech, none of us realised how rattled the Labour Party must be by its opponents in the Warrington by-election. The right hon. Gentleman devoted the lion's share of his speech to the by-election and, by default, did not deal with the major problems that we ought to be discussing.
It was a disappointment to me and my hon. Friends and, I am sure, to many Labour Members that the right hon. Gentleman did not make one constructive proposal. It is easy to say that the Government have got it wrong, but we have to judge such comments in the light of the alternatives that are proffered and the right hon. Gentleman put forward no alternative. All that he did was to refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I do not know whether my right hon. Friend represents the aspirations and policies of the Labour Party. We have no way of telling, even after the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield mentioned my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who has been sitting in the Chamber throughout the debate. I am sure that there are many good reasons why the shadow Secretary of State for Wales is not on the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Anderson: The Opposition's spokesman was here earlier.

Mr. Best: The shadow Secretary of State was here briefly, but no other Opposition spokesman on Wales has been present during the debate. That is a sad derogation of duty by the Opposition in respect of Wales.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield mentioned the problems of Wales, and I shall devote my speech to that subject. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention that the main reasons for the massive unemployment and the redundancies in Wales are the closures in the steel industry, a major industry that has sustained Wales in the past. Our people realise that if only the previous Labour Government had grasped the nettle of the steel industry earlier and had taken the decisions that the present Government have had to take the rundown in the industry would not have been so precipitous.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the hon. Gentleman estimate how many of the 10,000 unemployed people in Gwynedd are out of work as a result of steel closures?

Mr. Best: I am grateful for that intervention. I am coming on to the problems affecting the whole of Wales, but the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) will accept that much of the unemployment in Wales has been caused by steel closures. There are many other factors, particularly in Gwynedd, and the hon. Gentleman will wish to refer to those if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Development Corporation for Wales is optimistic that, within the next two or three years, about 30 Japanese companies will be establishing subsidiaries in Wales. It is sad to have to acknowledge that Japanese industries have greater faith than Labour Members in the future of Wales,

the work force of the Principality and what the Government are doing. The Opposition do not have the confidence that those companies feel in establishing themselves in the Principality.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Japanese industry wants to be situated here because it gives it free and easy access into the European Community.

Mr. Best: I look forward to the hon. Gentleman disclaiming the Labour Party's policy of bringing this country out of the EEC. He must do that if he believes what the has said. If a Labour Government withdrew Britain from the EEC, they would destroy hundreds of jobs in Wales and endanger the inward investment of American and Japanese firms that seek to establish themselves in the Principality.

Mr. James Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the Japanese companies that are supposed to be coming to Wales—they have not yet arrived—will receive incentives from the Government's regional policy while traditional industries that want to expand cannot get money from the Government? The only way that our industries can get money for expansion is for them to move out of their existing localities.

Mr. Best: I dispute that the money is not available. It is available, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the business start-up scheme, the loan guarantee scheme, regional development grants and further facilities provided in the Budget will assist companies in the Principality.
The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) is wrong when he says that Japanese companies have not yet arrived in Wales. They are already there. Wales has more Japanese industries on inward investment than any other region within the EEC. Those companies are in Wales because they wish to share in the European market, and the Labour Party threatens to destroy the opportunity for that.
The Welsh Development Agency is committed to spending £100 million in creating 3 million sq. ft. of factory space to provide 10,000 job opportunities in manufacturing industries. Last year, 1 million sq. ft. was allocated in 131 factories by the WDA and the Development Board for Rural Wales—almost a record allocation.
I wish to analyse the reasons behind regional policy. They are probably twofold. The first is to try to bring the supply of, and demand for, labour in assisted areas more closely into balance and the second is to try to sustain growth once it has taken place. One can easily do the former by shifting labour rather than capital, but I do not think that any hon. Member will suggest that that is the best way of trying to overcome the problem.
It is right that greater facilities should be given for people to move, and the Government introduced a scheme to facilitate the movement of council tenants from one area to another. The Opposition claim that they want to encourage mobility of labour, but the Labour Government did nothing to facilitate that. It took this Government to do that. I welcome it, but it is not the complete answer to the problems confronting the regions.
The nature of the problem in Wales is twofold. Areas such as those represented by the hon. Member for Caernarvon and myself have work forces in the small villages which must be sustained to retain community life.
Secondly, the more populous areas of Wales have been relying on large industries created within the last 200 years. Both, and particularly the former, need a great deal of infrastructure.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon will acknowledge that infrastructure is critical for North-West Wales and Anglesey. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the Government's commitment to dualling the A55 by the end of the decade to facilitate industry moving into Anglesey and his constituency. A tremendous amount of money is being spent by the Government on roads and telecommunications. Railways in certain areas are to be electrified. I hope that the hon. Member will join me in trying to persuade those responsible to electrify the Holyhead-Crewe line.
We must encourage diversity rather than just help one major industry in an area. If one analyses the problems of Wales, that is the stark reality facing the work force in Llanelli, for example. The people there have relied upon one industry. We must now try to channel Government assistance to create diversity. The problem exists in the steel closure areas in particular.
Two factors are involved. First, we must encourage small firms. Secondly, we must ensure that not only manufacturing industries but the service industries are assisted. I do not have time to develop the nuts and bolts of that, but the tourist industry, which in Wales is the second most important industry, needs to be treated more as an industry than something which is by the way. The tourist industry creates jobs cheaply, in terms of capital investment.
We are moving from manufacturing jobs to service jobs. That process is being assisted by the technical revolution. Hon. Members must acknowledge that. It is no good throwing money at manufacturing industries if we do not try to move more towards the service industries.
A garage proprietor wants to move to Anglesey. He wants to set up business on the island but no Government assistance is available. He has links with the area, so a new industry is not involved. Therefore, he cannot be assisted by a grant as manufacturing industries could.
We must encourage the small business sector. In the United States of America in the last 10 years, two-thirds of the 12 million new jobs created were in firms with fewer than 20 employees. We take risks with taxpayers' money in large industries such as British Leyland and the British Steel Corporation. If we can do that, we can afford to take risks with the small industries. Through the Welsh Development Agency and other agencies, I hope that the Government will take more risks with taxpayers' money by putting it into small industries where the growth will come.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that if the Division takes place at about 7 o'clock and the Front Bench spokesmen take only 15 minutes each there will be only 25 minutes left for all the hon. Members who catch my eye.

Mr. Jim Craigen: I shall not discuss Wales, but I wish that the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) had taken on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr.

Hamilton) that, although inducements exist for people to move into a particular area, the problem is that of sustaining the people already there.
This afternoon we listened to a clapped-out Polonius. The country needs more than a tired philosopher in charge of the Department of Industry. The Government have no regional policy. Moreover, I gained the distinct impression that the Secretary of State does not even believe in the need for a regional policy. It is no wonder that the consulate offices are busy with people who are thinking of emigrating to Canada and Australia. Young families see little hope of assured employment prospects in Britain.
The Government's regional policy is one of drift and despair. I am glad to see that the Minister responsible for industry at the Scottish Office is on the Front Bench., because the industrial style of the Scottish Development Agency has been cramped since the change in Government. I welcomed the way in which the agency encouraged environmental work. Many derelict sites in Glasgow were improved as a result of the agency's work.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) referred to a non-person and to that expensive chat programme on the radio last week. I did not disagree with many of the points made by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) during that chat show. However, I say that the show was "expensive" because we have such a thrawn woman at No. 10 Downing Street that she will be even more determined to pursue her lunatic industrial and economic policies if only because her predecessor made those remarks.
There has been a dramatic decline in manufacturing employment, but many inner city areas such as Glasgow are also facing a decline in service employment. The main problem is falling demand. Companies find it difficult to obtain orders. Companies are desperately taking on orders that two or five years ago they would not have looked at because they are so small. The Government cannot ignore that problem. Falling demand is beginning to feed the recession.
I visited a careers office last week to ascertain the latest jobs position of young people leaving school. I formed the impression that our careers offices are becoming placement agencies for the special programmes division of the Manpower Services Commission. I do not fault it for the work that it is trying to do, but such is the paucity of employment prospects for young people that the careers offices are busier than ever. More of their time is spent assisting fewer young people into employment. Much of their time is spent helping qualified and unqualified youngsters to join youth opportunities programmes.
In Clydeside, we are particularly affected by the drop in demand for apprentices. I hope that when the Government eventually produce a policy for traineeships they will realise the need to underwrite the cost of training for young people, because otherwise we shall be paying out money for special temporary employment measures when we could more effectively assist employers to take on young people for permanent jobs. At present the youth opportunities programme is effectively becoming a pre-employment course for far too many young people.
This morning I received in my mail—as I think most Scottish Members did—a circular from the Scottish Construction Industry Group, which claims to represent all sectors of the industry in Scotland—and it did not strike me as having come from Walworth Road. It is an all-party organisation and, if anything, it is slanted towards the


employers. The circular points out that over 50 per cent. of the work load of the construction industry comes from the public sector. It does not draw a distinction between the public and private sector but realises the interrelationship in employment. The circular asks:
Must this be our future?
It talks about the need to rebuild many of the "Victorian sewers" and of the need to renovate thousands of homes and to repair many of our motorways. That is becoming a problem in Scotland, and I dare say in England and Wales, too.
The problems of our inner cities have been starkly drawn to our attention more than once this week. I think of the tenement properties that could be renovated this year if it were not for the fact that the Government are not providing sufficient money.
Conscious of the time available, I shall simply put forward two points. First, if the Government want to give immediate help to firms in special development areas—I go so far as to include the whole of Scotland—the cost of abolishing industrial rating in Scotland would be £152 million. At a stroke, the Secretary of State could assist many industrial firms by doing what he already intends to do in the enterprise zones and abolish rates. Incidentally, I note that in South Wales that has led to an increase in the rentals that are being looked for in the enterprise zones.
In the West of Scotland we know only too well that when the good times come, and the tide comes in, we are the last to get the benefits, but when the bad times are here we are usually the first to know as the tide goes out.
On Monday, when I attended a meeting of the Inner London Employment Consultative Group, my arm was twisted. The inner London boroughs are worried about the rise in unemployment as it is higher there than it is in Wales. It is even higher in Scotland, for we now have over 300,000 unemployed people. There has been a decline in office employment in London, and as that trend continues the importance of regional policy will be borne in on the minds of the politicians in the South-East. But the tragedy is that by that stage the possibilities of effectively doing anything about regional policy will largely have dissipated, because it is now a matter of dog eating dog over obtaining major industrial developments in any part of the country.

Mr. Speaker: I now understand that the Front Bench speakers are co-operating and will not seek to wind up until 6.40 pm. If we could have five-minute speeches—I hate asking for them—I could call many more hon. Members.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I shall do my best, Mr. Speaker, to abide by what you have said.
I think that today we learnt of the ending of regional policy. We heard of no new initiative, and circumstances have deteriorated so much that we must question even whether there is a regional policy in operation. Over the past 10 to 15 years regional policy has been chopped and changed in a devastating way. Investment grants of 40 per cent. and 45 per cent. have come down to 20 per cent., and now in my area they are 15 per cent. Areas have been chopped and changed so that now large parts of Mid-Wales have the same status as Kent.
We have seen schemes come and go: selective employment tax, regional development premium, industrial development certificates. Companies do not know where they stand, with the result that they often do not treat seriously regional policy and the funds available under it. They are regarded as miscellaneous income below the line and as a result do not come into investment decisions.
Over the past 10 years regional policy has not worked as well as we hoped it would. We hoped to see a major effect, particularly in those areas in which there has been a serious rundown of structural employment—the ending of coal, steel, slate and other industries. Yet today I can address myself to the same problems as I did in 1974, when I became a Member of the House.
Major construction projects in my constituency include the Dinorwic pumped storage scheme, which has 2,000 jobs coming to an end. Although we have known for the past seven years that that would happen now, nothing has been done, because there is no planning system that addresses itself to such questions.
There are two ways in which we can carry out regional regeneration. One is to improve regional planning. We need to be more flexible. I noted the words of the Secretary of State for Wales in Caernarvon last week. The right hon. Gentleman said that in Wales we had difficulty in competing with the Irish package. We do. We need to look at our package of industrial incentives, examine the carrot, the grants available, and relate them to the number of jobs created. Money is often going to major capital projects that do not provide so many jobs.
We also need to consider training. There has been a rundown of the old skills in many areas, particularly in Wales. Many of the old skills have gone, and there has been no generation of new skills, so we are turning our workers into a semi-skilled work force, fit only for branch factories, which are the first to close down at the first ill wind of recession.
We need more capital support for small companies in particular, for businesses that are starting up and have no track record to attract investment by institutional investors, merchant banks and even the Welsh Development Agency. Agencies such as the WDA need more flexibility. They should take more risks with the smaller companies that are trying to start. I agree with the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) that we also need more flexibility in service industries, because they can provide jobs that are just as valuable as those in manufacturing industries in many areas.
Our regional policy has often concentrated on the private manufacturing sector. It must be remembered that in Wales nearly 40 per cent. of the employment is in the public sector. Therefore, we cannot consider regional policy without considering the coal and steel and similar industries. Decisions on those industries should be brought into the orbit of decision-making for regional planning.
On the other side of the coin there is the question of how to generate more jobs from inside an area. There are no longer hundreds of footloose manufacturing concerns running around the world. There is the odd Nissan or two, but apparently Wales has missed out on Nissan as well. We read in the Liverpool Daily Post that the Secretary of State has intimated that that is so. Because there are many fewer footloose concerns today, we need to generate more jobs inside Wales. We should help young people to set up their own ventures. For that, we should examine our tax


structure and provide tax incentives, whether the ventures are private or co-operative enterprises. There should be more emphasis in our education system on such enterprises.
We need to instil confidence in the future of areas such as Wales. Speeches about the need for people to move away from Wales to look for work do nothing to encourage confidence in the future. We should examine indigenous possibilities as well as strengthening regional policy from outside.
We also need to look at the way in which we relate to local government. We could and should have a bigger capital investment programme, geared to a regional programme, so that there is capital investment on roads, railways, schools and hospitals in those areas in which unemployment is rising. We cannot take the items in small compartments, because the policy on grants to local authorities has a big effect on the ability to provide jobs in sectors such as construction. We cannot rule out matters such as the parity of the pound and interest rates.
Over the past 15 years regional policy, as it has been administered from London, has failed to solve Welsh problems. Wales has been regarded as a peripheral region, and the action that has been taken has not solved the problems. We now need to turn away from an inbred dependence on London, which has gone on for far too long. Regional policy can tinker with the problems of Wales, but those problems will be solved only when the people of Wales decide to generate their own future from inside. For me, that means self-government, not regional government.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Debates on regional policy are usually pegged on a particular feature. Today that feature appears to be Warrington. In case the Opposition have not heard, may I say that there are other places in Britain.
Some believe that regional grants create prosperity and new jobs. The West Midlands does not believe that they do anything of the sort. IDCs did tremendous harm with good intent. Regional grants stop businesses which, having gone to an area and prospered, wish to expand in the same place because it is sensible not to have a 200-mile production belt from doing so. Regional grants mean that they must move to Liverpool, Wales or Scotland. That may be a laudable objective, but the companies which moved have bitterly regretted it. They have the worst of all worlds. The production facilities are in the wrong place. That is happening with British Leyland. It is not wicked because it wishes to rationalise. It wishes to bring some sense of rationality back into its business so that it can make cars under one roof—as do the Japanese, the Germans and the Italians.
Let us consider the steel industry. Once again, with good intent, the House has written off £3,000 million of taxpayers' money. There was a lack of rationality about where the steel industry was forced to locate. It was forced to have a mill here and a mill there. I understand that regional policies are of good intent. Since 1975, £685 million from the Common Market has gone north. During the past 10 or 12 years £5,000 million of taxpayers' money has gone north. Nothing has come to the West Midlands, especially Birmingham.
Unless regional policies expand industry and encourage it to do what it can do best, they do not work. My hon.

Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) favours sectoral grants. So do I. That is the only way to encourage industry. The idea that shipping huge sums of money to the North, Wales or Scotland creates something is not correct. It is not honest to suggest that it is. All that that does is to break down the genuine, proper commercial rhythm of a business as it wishes to grow. We must create the right conditions for industry, as was done in the past. That was why Birmingham became a great industrial centre. It was right for people to be there. Birmingham did not grow because of the grants system. The grants system has helped to destroy it and its industry. The good intent of successive Governments has created nothing but an organised chaos. It has prevented businesses from doing what they wanted to do where they could best do it. When they have gone elsewhere because of pots of gold, free rates, free tax periods and this, that and the other, they have not prospered. It was not industrial logic to move.
I come from the area that has suffered most from rationalisation. We should have an open attitude so that businesses are encouraged on a sectoral basis to do what they wish to do. Giving money away is not the right idea. We should reduce the tax paid by industry overall. That is much more likely to make industry prosperous and encourage people to risk their money. Do not think that by spending industries' money for them, by having pious good intent and by the nonsense of referring to unemployment as an evil—which we all know it is—it will go away and that if we talk nicely the right things will be achieved. All we shall succeed in doing is to destroy prosperity in one area without any guarantee that it wilt go elsewhere.
I hope that the House will get away from the nonsense of suggesting that regional policies introduced by this Government, or by any other Government, will create prosperity. They cannot do that. It is the interference of Government in industry that has created the troubles of Britain today.

Mr. James A. Dunn: I come from a city that is shuddering from the impact of recent street violence. Part of its cause is the dissatisfaction, discontent, resentment and bitterness that has been accelerating among the community about the conditions in which they live and the indignities of unemployment. I recognise that that was not wholly responsible for what happened in the south of Liverpool. I would be the last person to say that agitation did not bear a high proportion of responsibility, but even the Prime Minister accepted that contributory factors were unemployment and other difficulties.
My city is in a special development area. It has several advantages over other parts of the region. The enterprise zones are about to come into operation, and there is the Merseyside Development Corporation, which has not yet had resources made available. There are signs that they are coming, but they will be insufficient. Planning will be a problem initially, but that can be overcome. We shall probably request the Government for assistance to set the zones and the corporation on the right track.
The inner city partnership has played a large part in mopping up some of the surplus labour in the city. The special temporary employment programme and the youth opportunities programme have played a part. But at the


end of the day we still face disaster because of ever-escalating unemployment. What should we do about it? Some say that money should not be put into the area.
The Secretary of State obviously believes in what he says, but he offers no succour to our region. He does not believe that a regional policy should be introduced to salvage a situation from which there is hardly any escape. A catastrophe confronts us.
Whatever the Government put into Liverpool and Merseyside, however much money they have spent, at the end of the day their overall policy has cancelled some of the benefits of the special programmes that they introduced and have attempted to sustain. Those programmes need longer periods. I have already suggested to the Minister one way in which he could lengthen the period of the youth opportunities programme. If I had greater time at my disposal, I would spell it out. When youngsters leave school they need continuing educational opportunities, with financial assistance to sustain them. They need employment prospects and work experience. Perhaps the youngsters could be asked to regenerate the environment. Now that catastrophe has hit us, they could replenish that which has been destroyed through the street riots. That may compensate in some part for the disaster that has hit us during the past four days. We may not have escaped from it yet. There may be more to come.
I hope that the Government will listen to my message. I hope that I am not overdramatising the position or misrepresenting the needs of those whom I represent. Unless the Government grasp the problem firmly, reverse the path they are treading, and forgo the rigidity of monetarism that is guiding them ever and ever away from the people and the real needs of our nation, there is no way of overcoming the disaster. If they do not overcome what has happened in Liverpool and Wood Green, it will be multiplied in other areas many times. I regret that I carry that message. I wish that I could deliver some other message. I warn the Government that time is running out.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I shall try to complete my remarks in five minutes. It will be difficult for me to do so because the Secretary of State made an outrageous speech that needs to be answered. It is clear that he does not believe in regional policy. If he does believe in it, he probably thinks that it should amount to nothing more than a few cosmetics. The right hon. Gentleman was not honest enough to say openly that he believes that regional policy does more harm than good.
I shall concentrate my remarks on one of the many factual errors and misconceptions in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He said that it is important for the regions that the whole country should prosper. He claimed that if the country prospers the regions will prosper. I accept that the regions would prosper to the extent that there would be fewer unemployed than otherwise, but we are talking about relative deprivation. The real test is not how rich a region is but its degree of wealth when it is compared with the rest of the country.
It is relevant to quote some figures that appeared in Cmnd. 6058, which was published in 1975. The figures relate to 1960–70, a decade during which the world was booming. The economies of the developed world were developing faster than at any time hitherto. It was a time

when the United Kingdom was prospering. Against that background, what happended in the regions? The White Paper states:
Had Scotland, Wales and Northern England secured 42 per cent."—
that is, their share of Great Britain employment in 1960—
of national employment growth during the 1960s, they would have experienced a growth of 270,000.
In fact, employment in Scotland, Wales and Northern England fell by 100,000.
The White Paper continues:
Of the deficiency of 370,000, 180,000 was attributed to developments within the service sectors; 120,000 was attributable to the primary sector"—
largely because of the closure of the coal mines—
and 70,000 due to the manufacturing sector.
During the boom period from 1960 to 1970, when there were both Conservative and Labour Governments, there was a loss of about 370,000 jobs in the regions. At the same time, the increase in jobs in the South-East and Midlands was about 390,000. In the decade, there was a net transfer of 370,000 jobs.
What is the price of regional policy? We have had regional policies for 50 years. When the Industry Bill was being considered in Committee, I said that I travelled by car from Genoa down the leg of Italy for about 100 miles to a place called Lerici. We passed through rural country—for the most part it consisted of vineyards—and mountainous land. Soon after starting the journey, we entered a tunnel that passed through a large mountain. We emerged from the tunnel after about a mile. We were travelling on a large double carriageway road. Having passed through the tunnel, we crossed a huge ravine on a marvellous bridge. The road ran straight and level. We passed through another mountain and crossed another bridge. That was the pattern for about 100 miles. When we reached our destination, I told the driver "In my country we cannot have a road from Conway to Cardiff because the mountains are in the way."
Regional policy must not always be considered on the ground of investing to make money. The various economic indicators tell us that Wales is the best region in the United Kingdom in terms of investment and per capita production. The Secretary of State argued that if we are to attract investment we must do better. Wales is already the best in the sense of narrow and technical economic assessments. I should like to have an hour or two hours to teach the right hon. Gentleman what regional policy should mean. If he does not believe in it, let him say so openly and pursue his policy of looking after the rich parts of the country.

Mr. Michael Grylls: The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) spoke about industrial derating. That strikes a chord with many. There is no doubt that the high level of rates is a killer of businesses. The hon. Gentleman should be reminded that it is Labour councils throughout the country that are increasing rates the most. That must be rammed home. We must try to reduce rates for industry.
If the House is honest in considering regional policy and how it reflects on the past 20 or 30 years, it will accept that both Conservative and Labour Governments have tried to attract industry to the difficult regions, the regions of high unemployment. There has been a bipartisan policy. It is true that there have been successes. Some firms have


gone to the regions but would not have done so if it had not been for regional policies. Despite these successes, the extreme regions of Britain have the worst unemployment records. It would be sensible if the House and both major parties reconsidered the value for money that the taxpayer is receiving from spending almost £1,000 million on regional policy. It is not that we do not want to spend the money, but are we certain that the money is being spent in the right way? A great deal of money has been spent, but the country appears generally to have stood still or to have gone down a little further.
In a sense, regional policy is not a cure but a tourniquet. It is not a cure for the problems of the regions. It merely prevents the problems from becoming worse. It does some good in that sense. There are a number of doubts about the policy. There is evidence of a great deal of taxpayers' money going to a number of large energy industries in various areas when that assistance is not necessary. Many of the companies would probably go in any event to the places that they select because they are convenient for North Sea oil or gas. Part of the taxpayers' money could be better spent in other ways in the regions.
My right hon. Friend rightly said that we have to protect the internationally mobile projects. We have to ensure that they come to Britain. We have to offer aids to them that are equivalent to those offered by other EEC countries. If we do not do so, we shall not get the projects. That is the dichotomy. In some instances we are spending the taxpayers' money unnecessarily. On the other hand, there are truly international mobile projects—for example, manufacturing companies—that could go to any country. The aid that we give to those projects has to be maintained.
If there is an ability to review the regional aids that are offered to internationally mobile projects, perhaps the review should be undertaken in an EEC context. There is an argument for de-escalating the general level of aid to mobile projects. That could not be done unilaterally.
If there is a criticism to be made of the inward investment policy for the regions, it is that there is evidence of a lack of co-ordination in Government services. The Department of the Environment is responsible for regional policies for the inner cities, which include policies to take account of the problems referred to by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn). The policies for the councils are also the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. That is true of inward investment and development. The Department of Industry is otherwise responsible. Planning decisions, of course, are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.
In general, the co-ordination of the Government's services is in a mess. Reference has been made to the Republic of Ireland, which has an efficient system. The Irish Development Agency is responsible for the whole of Ireland. Anyone who is contemplating investment in Ireland can be given by the one body all the information about planning, about cities and about the aids that are available. That is not so in Britain, and that may be to our disadvantage.
It is worth while to consider whether we could have a more efficient system, especially for the inward investment that we must continue to attract. It would be better if the Government took a slightly different attitude. Instead of saying to inward investors "We have a wonderful site for you at Newcastle and we suggest that you go there", it might be better to ask "Where would you

like to go? What is best for you?" That approach would be more likely to succeed. If we did that and considered again the value for money that we get from regional policy without making party points across the Floor of the House that will not create one additional job, we would have a successful debate and ensure that our regional policy for the next 20 years was rather more successful than it has been in the past.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I should like to share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) the Opposition's surprise that the Government have chosen to deal with this debate purely as an industry debate. We were debating regional policy and clearly the House wanted to debate matters other than industrial grants. Hon. Members wanted to talk about the environment, roads, rail electrification and so on.
We were surprised that Ministers from the Department of Industry both opened and will wind up the debate. As the hon. Member for Caerarvon (Mr. Wigley) made clear, the Department of the Environment has a crucial role when we are discussing regional policy. The Department of Transport is also crucial. There should be co-ordination. But what came out clearly during the debate is that not only do the Government not have any policy for the regions but the Secretary of State for Industry does not want any such policy. He does not believe in a policy for the regions.
That is surprising, because we must be one of the few countries which do not have a regional policy. Most of the countries in Europe have regional policies. They accept the fact that there are certain areas of a country which need special assistance not only from one agency but from many agencies co-ordinated together. That is the practice not only in Europe but in most parts of the world. Therefore, it is surprising that the Secretary of State is so opposed—and apparently the Government likewise—even to the concept of an industry policy.
What surprised me further was the tone of the speech of the Secretary of State for Industry. When listening to him, one would have thought that all was going well and that the Government were succeeding in all their aims. That is the message which he complacently put across. On the one hand, he says, of course, he must admit that unemployment has not yet reached its peak, but the next minute he talks of all the changes which are coming about which suit our industry.
My next-door neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), invited the Secretary of State to go to Warrington, which is next door to me. I wish that he would take up that challenge. If he did so, the cloud-cuckoo-land theories of monetarism which he has been putting forward to the House would be dispelled at the first doors at which he knocked.
I do not want to labour the point about Warrington because it has been mentioned many times in the debate, but it exemplifies the fallacies of the Secretary of State's argument. I shall not give percentages, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield did. The number out of work in Warrington in May 1979 when the Government took office was 3,199. In June 1981 it was 8,737. That is an enormous increase. The Secretary of State referred to the causes of and answers to unemployment. He talked about entrepreneurs—that lovely word—and a forward-looking policy of employers. Let him go to Warrington


and see what is happening in the Science Park. There are industries such as microprocessor industries and nuclear industries there. All are forward-looking industries. But there are still over 5,000 more people unemployed in Warrington than there were in May 1979. That dispels the idea of entrepreneurs which the monetarists believe to be the answer to unemployment.
The Secretary of State delivered his usual lecturette to the House about the trade union movement. He said that we should bash the trade unions and that it was their fault, really: they put in wage demands and claims that were so excessive and that they forced industry out of business. Let the Secretary of State go to Warrington. It is an area which has no history of industrial unrest. It is not an area of strikes or of industrial trouble. It is not an area of high wages—quite the reverse. Where is the monetarist theory which the Secretary of State preaches to the House in practice in an area such as Warrington?
The facts of Warrington belie everything that the Secretary of State has said to the House today. I repeat that I wish he would take up the challenge and go there. I wish that other Ministers would go there. The Opposition feel sorry for the poor Conservative candidate, who has been completely abandoned. The Government know what a frightening result the Warrington result next week will be, when the people will clearly show what they think of monetarism and of the Secretary of State's policies.
The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) talked about the electrification of the rail line between Holyhead and Chester and the extension of the A55. At a time of high unemployment in Wales, both those would be excellent projects to undertake now. The hon. Member for Anglesey should go to the Secretary of State for Wales or the Secretary of State for Transport and ask why we cannot have some capital for such projects.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Three schemes for the A55 in Wales totalling £55 million have been announced. They will start this month or next month. The right hon. Gentleman should ascertain the facts before making such statements.

Mr. Oakes: I do not know about my ascertaining the facts. That is what the Secterary of State's hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey was asking him to do. If he has already done it, I am delighted that at least in Wales the Government's general policy for investment in capital projects is not as obtuse as it is in the rest of the country.
The Government do not seem to understand that investment of public money in a project which is of benefit to the community is not waste. They consider that any public money spent for any purpose is a waste of money. That is clearly ridiculous. There can be waste of money or investment of money. The Opposition are asking for the investment of money in the regions, particularly at this time, not merely to create jobs now but to create jobs for the future—something which I should have thought that a Government who were supposed to be business men would be well aware of. One needs to invest now for the future.
Unemployment is an emotional subject. One of the worst things which I saw was "The Money Programme" on television some weeks ago which revealed that a furniture factory was being put under the hammer and equipment worth £200,000 was being sold to South Africa and Israel for £20,000. What was left was sold for scrap.

When the boom comes, if it comes, which is doubtful under the Government's policies, we shall have to re-equip and reinvest in industry from the ground. This country will be like Paraguay when we re-equip industry. Everything will have been sold off thanks to the Conservative Government, who will have allowed everything to fall into disuse and into an industrial death.
The prime areas where that is happening are the regions. It might be argued by the Government that we do not need a regional policy now because we have reduced the whole country—London, Birmingham and everywhere—to one policy of misery. That might be a fair argument. In fact, it would not, because there is still inequality between the different regions and between Wales and Scotland and the rest of the country.
It is regrettable that the Government have completely abandoned all question and all hope of a regional policy. It is terrifying that they cling to the theory rather than practice even when hon. Members and some of their right hon. Friends, respected by them hitherto, tell them that they are clinging to a theory and that they are not concerned for the needs of the people or the needs of their supporters in many areas. If the Government doubt that, let them talk to the local authority associations—not just the Labour-controlled ones. Associations such as the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils will give them their answer to the monetarist policy and its effects on local government.
This has been a useful debate because it has cleared the air and has shown up the Government for what they are as regards the regions. On behalf of the Opposition, I say that the enormous energy wealth of coal, gas and oil will be applied by a Labour Government to assist regions and to bring them up to the best standards so that we do not have a hideous desert of unemployment such as that which is now spread over the face of half the country.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry Mr. John MacGregor): The right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) is very long on hot air but very short on facts, and I shall give him one fact immediately. He talked in some detail about the need for capital investment, with which I agree, but is he aware that capital investment in real terms in the nationalised industries this year is up 14 per cent. on last year? The Opposition have been wrong in a wide range of matters, as I shall hope to demonstrate.
I assumed that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley)—and I say this in a kindly way—had been put up to speak for the Opposition instead of the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) in order to make amends for the emptiness of the speech by the Leader of the Opposition in the recent unemployment debate. I was looking forward to a serious and constructive contribution from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield because he is a serious and constructive man. But he seems to have been affected by his colleagues and, alas, he was just as empty and sterile today as the Opposition have been in their policies. Like other Labour Members, he made a few subtle references to Warrington, but his speech contained very little else.
As many of my hon. Friends have said, in the right hon. Gentleman's speech there was no serious analysis and there were no policies—not a word. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) mentioned in a very interesting speech, there was not


a word about whether the regional policies that have been pursued by all of us over the last 20 years or more have been effective in achieving the objectives that we have all set ourselves.
As the Public Accounts Committee—an all-party Committee—recently pointed out, in the last 10 years £5,000 million has been spent in budgetary terms on regional policies, and we cannot be certain whether that money has been effectively and wisely spent in every respect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) said. The House should address itself seriously to this question, in the interests of the regions alone.
At least the right hon. Member for Chesterfield refrained from urging more Government spending, perhaps because he knows the dangers of that. In that respect he was markedly different from the Leader of the Opposition, who put forward his prescription in a recent speech in Cardiff. He did not expose them to the House of Commons, because that would have shown the emptiness of his policy. His prescription was to cut income tax massively, reduce indirect taxes, reduce the minimum lending rate, increase public expenditure, encourage major infrastructure programmes, and to have big decreases in taxation and big increases in public expenditure.
Such a policy would have disastrous effects on the public sector borrowing requirement, and hence on minimum lending rates. I agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield that we want to see a policy of declining interest rates, but we have an international problem there as well. The Leader of the Opposition's policy would have disastrous effects on the exchange rate, about which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield had a good deal to say in the opening part of his speech.
There was no recognition by any of the Labour Members of the effects of the increase in unit labour costs in this country as a whole—

Mr. Stanley Orme: indicated dissent.

Mr. MacGregor: The right hon. Member for Salford, West shakes his head. There is no answer to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in the last employment debate that one of the major reasons for the difficulties that our economy has suffered in the last two years of world recession is that from 1975 to 1980—four years of Labour Government and the first year of this Government—unit labour costs in the United Kingdom rose by 88 per cent., whereas in France they rose by 45 per cent., in the United States of America by 36 per cent., in Germany by 17 per cent., and in Japan by nil. That fact, more than anything else, has been responsible for the difficulties of manufacturing industry in the last two years. I suggest to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) that that has had a great impact on many manufacturing industries in the regions, as elsewhere.
It is widely recognised on both sides of the House, and has been recognised in the recent regional debates, that the regions have had over the years a major industrial restructuring problem. Vast sums of money have been spent in the regions. In most cases the infrastructure is now substantially better, so that to a large extent that problem has been overcome. There is heavy dependence on the industries concerned, and restructuring is essential. They have depended heavily in the post-war years on help from elsewhere.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield had a great deal to say about the unemployment figures. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to point out that during his period in office, from the lowest level to the peak, the increase in unemployment was 165 per cent., compared with 102 per cent. now. But during the earlier period the Labour Government were not tackling many of the underlying problems of uncompetitive industries and were not getting the productive potential which is now coming through in many of the manufacturing industries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) made an extremely important point about inward investment. In looking at the direct impact of regional development grants, we can see that the one area where it has been very beneficial is in regard to inward investment in the regions. Even in times of recession, that inward investment has often enabled a region to weather the storm. Indeed, many of the companies in the regions which are subsidiaries of overseas companies are making plans for expansion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] If I had more time I would list them.
When the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) said that the companies concerned were coming here only in order to get into the Common Market, he was hopelessly wide of the mark. [Interruption] They are, of course, of great benefit to us, but the hon. Member was wide of the mark in being critical of them. They are of great benefit because they are helping our exports to the Community. Many of the companies, particularly those from America and Japan, are investing here much more than anywhere else in the Community. That is something to shout about. They are producing good results with the better management that they often bring and with their high technology.
My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey, therefore, was right in regarding inward investment as being of fundamental importance and significance to the regions. If we shouted a little more about those successes and that kind of inward investment, companies not only from overseas but from other parts of the United Kingdom might think more about investing in the regions.
The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) and the right hon. Member for Widnes said that we did not have a regional policy. Indeed, the hon. Member for Newton had the effrontery to suggest that no money was being spent on the regions. The hon. Member for Wrexham said that it was merely cosmetic. They are very expensive cosmetics, because in the last year alone we have spent £730 million on regional policy. That is not peanuts, and it is on top of a lot of expenditure from other Departments. That sum has been spent specifically on regional policy.
Opposition Members mentioned urban development. The Department of the Environment has spent £200 million on inner urban areas in the last year.

Mr. John Evans: What about some strategy?

Mr. MacGregor: There is a strategy. There have been regional development grants and selective financial assistance, but it is important to concentrate the regional assistance on the areas of greatest need. That is particularly important for the regions with the highest levels of unemployment, because, particularly at times when the economy recovers, it gives them a considerable advantage over much more of the rest of the country than they had before we came into power.
I point out to the hon. Member for Wrexham that the Secretary of State was not questioning regional development grants. Indeed, I have already indicated the scale of expenditure that we have made in the last year. My right hon. Friend suggested that the mere pumping in of public money was not the sole answer. He also wondered how effective some of that expenditure had been. I should have thought that, as custodians of public money, and as a Government concerned with the regions, we should be asking those questions. Above all, my right hon. Friend was pointing out that many other things also matter and that regional spending on its own is nothing like enough.
I remind the hon. Member for Kirkdale—he was the most blatant in urging that more money should be spent—that in the past year £300 million of public money has been spent in the Liverpool area. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that that is not enough. He might like to consider the harm that is done to other, viable industries which have to foot the bill for that kind of money. One of the disasters of the Liverpool riots was the effect on Liverpool's image, particularly in regard to small businesses. I feel deeply sorry for the small businesses which have lost so much in the riots and for those who have lost their jobs.
It was a Labour Prime Minister who said that spending our way out of a recession was an option that no longer existed. But in listening to Labour Members today one wonders whether they have learnt anything. They seem to want even more indiscriminate spending than we have seen in the past. They ignore the fact that the Government have already spent a good deal and that there are limits to public expenditure. They ignore the impact on industries in their own regions, let alone those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. What they suggest ignores the consideration of cost-effectiveness that many of my hon. Friends have mentioned. It ignores what can be the debilitating effect on companies' own performance and their ability to tackle their own defects such as the rise in unit labour costs by fostering the illusion that there is and always will be a crutch to hold them up. It weakens the image and attractiveness of the regions to investors from aboard and elsewhere at home and even entrepreneurs in their own midst are inclined to go to other regions. It leads companies and employees into the ultimately self-destroying belief that Governments, not the customer, are their target and their source of economic prosperity.
Much that is good is now taking place in industrial restructuring. I wish that I had more time to concentrate on that. There are developments, for example, in the enterprise zones. There is a very interesting and hopeful development in Corby. There are developments among small businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey asked us to take risks in the tax system to help small businesses. He will know that we are doing that, and it is having an effect.
At the end of the day, however, what matters above all and what will work for the regions more than all that we have discussed is what they can do for themselves in improving their own image and effectiveness. The answer to high unemployment is competitiveness. The ultimate employer is the customer. Jobs are created by entrepreneurial managements combining with co-operative work forces to use existing as well as new capital

investment to provide goods and services which beat the competition in price or quality or both. That is referred to at the end of our amendment. It is noticeably lacking in the Opposition motion.
For all the reasons that I have given, I urge the House to accept the amendment and to reject the Opposition proposal.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 302.

Division No.257]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Adams, Allen
English, Michael


Allaun, Frank
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Alton, David
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Anderson, Donald
Evans, John (Newton)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ewing, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew


Atkinson, H. (H'gey,)
Field, Frank


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Flannery, Martin


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Beith, A. J.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Ford, Ben


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Foster, Derek


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Tom
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Freud, Clement


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Buchan, Norman
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Ginsburg, David


Campbell, Ian
Golding, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gourlay, Harry


Canavan, Dennis
Graham, Ted


Cant, R. B,
Grant, John (Islington C)


Carmichael, Neil
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cohen, Stanley
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hardy, Peter


Cook, Robin F.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cowans, Harry
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Haynes, Frank


Craigen, J. M.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Crowther, J. S.
Heffer, Eric S.


Cryer, Bob
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Home Robertson, John


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Homewood, William


Dalyell, Tam
Hooley, Frank


Davidson, Arthur
Horam, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Davies, lfor (Gower)
Howells, Geraint


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Huckfield, Les


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dempsey, James
Janner, Hon Greville


Dewar, Donald
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Dixon, Donald
John, Brynmor


Dobson, Frank
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Dormand, Jack
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Douglas, Dick
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Dubs, Alfred
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Dunn, James A.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Dunnett, Jack
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Kerr, Russell


Eastham, Ken
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Kinnock, Neil


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Lambie, David


Lamond, James
Leighton, Ronald


Leadbitter, Ted
Lestor, Miss Joan






Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Rooker, J. W.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Litherland, Robert
Ross, Stephen (lsle of Wight)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ryman, John


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sever, John


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Sheerman, Barry


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McCartney, Hugh
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Short, Mrs Renée


McElhone, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


McGuire, Michael (lnce)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


McKelvey, William
Silverman, Julius


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Skinner, Dennis


McMahon, Andrew
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


McNally, Thomas
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


McWilliam, John
Snape, Peter


Magee, Bryan
Soley, Clive


Marks, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Spriggs, Leslie


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stallard, A. W.


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Strang, Gavin


Meacher, Michael
Straw, Jack


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Mikardo, lan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Tilley, John


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Torney, Tom


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Newens, Stanley
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Weetch, Ken


Ogden, Eric
Welsh, Michael


O'Halloran, Michael
White, Frank R.


O'Neill, Martin
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Whitehead, Phillip


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wigley, Dafydd


Palmer, Arthur
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Park, George
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Parker, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Pavitt, Laurie
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Pendry, Tom
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Penhaligon, David
Winnick, David


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Prescott, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wright, Sheila


Race, Reg
Young, David (Bolton E)


Radice, Giles



Richardson, Jo
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Mr. Allen McKay and


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Mr. Donald Coleman


Robertson, George



Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Blackburn, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Blaker, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Body, Richard


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Ancram, Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arnold, Tom
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowden, Andrew


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Bradford, Rev R.


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Braine, Sir Bernard


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bright, Graham


Banks, Robert
Brinton, Tim


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brittan, Leon


Bendall, Vivian
Brooke, Hon Peter


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Brotherton, Michael


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Browne, John (Winchester)


Best, Keith
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Bryan, Sir Paul


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Biggs-Davison, John
Buck, Antony





Budgen, Nick
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Hawksley, Warren


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hayhoe, Barney


Butcher, John
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Heddle, John


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Henderson, Barry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Hicks, Robert


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Hill, James


Churchill, W. S.
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hooson, Tom


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Corrie, John
lrving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Costain, Sir Albert
Jessel, Toby


Cranborne, Viscount
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Critchley, Julian
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dover, Denshore
Kershaw, Anthony


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kimball, Marcus


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Durant, Tony
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs Jill


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Knox, David


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lamont, Norman


Eggar, Tim
Lang, Ian


Elliott, Sir William
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Emery, Peter
Latham, Michael


Eyre, Reginald
Lawrence, Ivan


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Farr, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Fell, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Loveridge, John


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Luce, Richard


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Lyell, Nicholas


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCrindle, Robert


Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
MacGregor, John


Fox, Marcus
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
McQuarrie, Albert


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Madel, David


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Major, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marland, Paul


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marlow, Tony


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Goodhart, Philip
Mates, Michael


Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawby, Ray


Gorst, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gow, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mayhew, Patrick


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mellor, David


Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Greenway, Harry
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Griffiths, E. (B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Miscampbell, Norman


Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger


Grylls, Michael
Molyneaux, James


Gummer, John Selwyn
Monro, Hector


Hamilton, Hon A.
Montgomery, Fergus


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moore, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morgan, Geraint


Hannam, John
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)






Murphy, Christopher
Speller, Tony


Myles, David
Spence, John


Neale, Gerrard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Needham, Richard
Sproat, Iain


Neubert, Michael
Squire, Robin


Newton, Tony
Stainton, Keith


Onslow, Cranley
Stanbrook, Ivor


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stanley, John


Osborn, John
Steen, Anthony


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Stokes, John


Parris, Matthew
Stradling Thomas, J.


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Tapsell, Peter


Patten, John (Oxford)
Tebbit, Norman


Pattie, Geoffrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pawsey, James
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Percival, Sir Ian
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pink, R. Bonner
Thompson, Donald


Pollock, Alexander
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Porter, Barry
Thornton, Malcolm


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Trippier, David


Proctor, K. Harvey
Trotter, Neville


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Raison, Timothy
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Rathbone, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Waddington, David


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wakeham, John


Renton, Tim
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rhodes James, Robert
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walters, Dennis


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Ward, John


Rifkind, Malcolm
Warren, Kenneth


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Watson, John


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wells, Bowen


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Wheeler, John


Rossi, Hugh
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rost, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wickenden, Keith


Scott, Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shersby, Michael



Silvester, Fred
Tellers for the Noes:


Sims, Roger
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Carol Mather.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, noting that Government expenditure on financial assistance to industry in the regions continues at high levels, supports the Government's policy of concentrating regional assistance on the areas of greatest need; notes that regional assistance is provided at the expense of individual and corporate taxpayers throughout the whole of the United Kingdom; and believes that Government interventions are less important than the efforts of existing and new managements and their workforces to be competitive and so to secure prosperity and fuller employment in the regions.

Higher Education

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I beg to move,
That this House strongly condemns the cuts in resources for higher education by Her Majesty's Government including the imposition of 'full cost' fees for overseas students; deplores the deliberate reduction in student places by 20,000 which will mark the abandonment of the Robbins principle at a time when the population of student age is increasing and the higher education need of adults is growing; and notes with special concern the effect of cuts on those institutions which have made particular efforts to provide for the technological and scientific needs of the nation by their teaching and research activities.
This is the third time in 12 months that the Opposition have raised education matters during their Supply time. In July, almost exactly a year ago to the day, we raised the question of overseas student fees and tried to persuade the Government to abandon their malevolent, clumsy and destructive policy of imposing so-called full-cost fees on overseas students. We offered authoritative evidence for the view that such a policy would result in terrible consequences for British relationships with the Commonwealth and the Third world and awful results for the funding and financing of institutions and courses in higher education.
Tragically, we were proved correct. The 1981 UCCA returns demonstrate a fall in applications for places at British universities of 57 per cent. of demand in 1979 and 35 per cent. of demand in 1980.
In February, we drew attention to the impact of expenditure cuts on schools and referred extensively to the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate on the impact of expenditure cuts. That report concluded that unless positive action was taken to counter the cuts, what were then limited anxieties could become major problems.
The Government's response to our appeals, and to the appeals of the HMI and others, has been to increase the cuts by making further withdrawals of finance from local education authorities and other local authorities.
We are now debating higher education at a time when our economic, technological and cultural needs are increasing, when the number of 18-year-olds in the population will reach a peak in 1982–83 and when adult generations have a greater need of occupational reorientation and refreshment than they have ever previously had in any technological age.
We do so at a time when our industrial and commercial competitors are sustaining larger proportions of their populations in higher and continuing education. In short, we raise the debate at a time when qualitative and quantitative individual and national needs for higher education have never been more profound or obvious and when failure to meet those needs has never been more damaging.
It is at this crucial time that the Government have decided to terminate the operation of the Robbins principle that higher education courses should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so. It is at this crucial time that the Government have put closure notices on the facilities of public sector higher education and advanced further education. It is at this time, through the agency of the complaining but compliant University Grants Committee, that the Government have exterminated 20,000 or 25,000


places in universities and taken resources worth 17 per cent. of total university funding away from those necessitous institutions.
It is at this time that the Government have weakened the essential research and development effort of the public and university sectors of education by impoverishing the institutions in which research is carried out as well as the individuals who do it. It is at this time that opportunities for youngsters to enter university research and teaching are being cut. The access for working-class children to enter higher education is being narrowed even beyond the abysmally low point that has been a tradition in our education system.
This is the higher education policy of a Government ruled by the theories of monetarism—economic theories that will burn the seed corn to gain a minute or two of heat. They are economic policies which, in the name of savings, waste talent, destroy opportunities, sacrifice enlightenment and defeat excellence. That is precisely what will occur as a result of what the Government are doing to higher education.
Previously, I said that the Secretary of State was complacent in his response to the menace that cuts impose on our education. I cannot say that now. The word "complacent" does not quite convey the right hon. and learned Gentleman's sense of urgency. He is the Von Schlieffen of supine and total inactivity. The Secretary of State even tries to represent the cuts—[Interruption.] I hope that Conservative Members will listen to what the Secretary of State has said. The right hon. and learned Gentleman claims that the cuts are a benign effort to understand the problems of unemployed graduates. Last week, the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke on a television programme and asked what point there was in students undertaking their education when there was no demand for them at the end.
Perhaps it is time to ask what point there is in having a Secretary of State for Education and Science who has the ideology of a book burner. Perhaps it is time to ask what point there is in having a Secretary of State whose answer to the problem of unemployment is to create more, to remove the means of overcoming it or to obliterate one of the most creative alternatives to it. Perhaps we shall receive an answer from the Secretary of State's mentor, if we do not receive an answer from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I refer to the Under-Secretary of State. His vision of higher education is that of a system composed of a few—a very few—
small elitist institutions of superb quality".
The Under-Secretary foresees several—but not too many—COW colleges with classes of 30 or 40 students. Those students will raise loans, live at home and simultaneously—although no one quite knows how—attend monotechnics and cramming academies where research is as rare as long hair. If any hon. Member does not believe that that is the hon. Gentleman's vision of higher education, he should read the article entitled "Pruning in Pursuit of Excellence", which was published in early March in The Guardian. In that article he called
not for the equal clipping of all higher education institutions by nail scissors but rather the…careful pruning as if by secateurs in our gardens where dead wood is cut down and new growth and future blooms are encouraged.
It is a pity that we do not have a soundtrack, because Beethoven's Pastoral symphony would have gone nicely with such sentiments.
I wonder how the technologists of Salford, the engineers of Aston or the scientists of Bradford feel about being described as "dead wood". I wonder whether polytechnics feel that they have been subjected to delicate pruning when, even on the Government's White Paper figures, the polytechnics will suffer proportionately double the cuts that are to be imposed on universities. Given that universities such as Aston place 95 per cent. to 98 per cent. of their graduates in employment and that 80 per cent. of polytechnic courses have a vocational content, does the hon. Gentleman think that they feel surplus to modern requirements? Of course, they do not. They are not surplus to modern requirements. Only the saloon-bar statisticians of the Tory Party could ever presume that they were or preside over a system that makes them surplus to requirements.
The Government's innumeracy begins with their earnestly and oft-made plea to higher education to fulfil the technological and scientific needs of the 1980s and the 1990s. The Secretary of State made that plea on the same day as Salford, Aston, Bradford, UMIST, UWIST, arid several other institutions—which have demonstrated considerable excellence and responsiveness to need—were shattered by huge and destructive cuts. If we apply the criterion "Does higher education deliver the goods", those institutions could demonstrate on any criterion—other than the peculiar one adopted by the Government and the University Grants Committee—that they deliver them.
Let us consider graduate placements in employment. The Financial Times annually publishes a table showing graduate placements. At the top of the table are Aston, Heriot-Watt and Brunel. Lower down the table, at position No. 11, stands Salford. Bradford is found at position 19. Which university comes after Bradford? Why—it is Oxford, at position 21. Bristol is in position 22 and Durham is in position 24.
I do not wish to make invidious comparisons, but if the criterion of delivering the goods is employed and if we rely on the accuracy of the statistics published by the Financial Times, those universities deliver the goods. They also deliver the goods in other respects. Outside research funding is one of the criteria that is used by the University Grants Committee and that is accepted by the Government. Last week The Sunday Times showed that the University of Bath was justifiably congratulating itself on the quality of research funding that it attracts and on the number of doctors of philosophy that it has produced in recent years. Therefore, in those terms too, universities at the top of the UGC's hit list can prove themselves better than many of the universities lower down on the list.
Let us look at the universities that respond to the needs of the age and at those universities that offer applied science, technology and engineering, biological sciences, pharmacy and a creative understanding of the problems of our towns and of our great cities' planning needs. Indeed, this is a relevant week in which to mention that. Those universities will be hit hardest and will have their efforts rewarded by defeat and by the most significant and ruinous cuts ever to be inflicted on our higher education system.
The Government's innumeracy extends further. It perhaps originates in an economic strategy that requires that higher education policy be dictated by, in the words of Sir James Hamilton, permanent secretary to the Department of Education and Science, "available expenditure". As Lord Robbins said, that then imposes the


"device of target numbers" on higher education and results, in the words of Sir Alec Merrison, chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, in guaranteeing the maximum amount of damage for a minimum of saving.
That was put more briefly, but with the same force, by the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics. Its members are not men to mince their words. They said that that policy will result "in chaos".
The Government's arithmetic neglects the huge cost impact of the loss of overseas students, which adds anything up to 7 per cent. on the effect of the other UGC and polytechnic cuts. That arithmetic pays no regard to the research obligations of higher education when it makes its neat and tidy pupil-teacher ratio calculations. It evades the fact that polytechnic degrees are one-third cheaper than university degrees and that college of higher education CNAA-validated degrees are 50 per cent. cheaper than those undertaken in universities. That arithmetic dishonesty evades the implications of making 4,000 university academics and 4,000 polytechnic teachers redundant.
The Government and the UGC know that legal actions for breach of contract could, in the calculation of Lord Annan and of many others, cost anything up to £200 million. Yet the Government are prepared to talk about making savings in public expenditure. That expense does not include the enormous cost—to the individuals concerned and to the local communities from which they come—which will result from the loss of non-academic jobs. Tens of thousands of jobs will be lost as a result of the cuts. The arithmetic that the Government and the UGC employ in the university and non-university higher education sectors does not include the possibility that some universities, when subjected to cuts, will look for the cheapest courses. The clumsy cuts could invoke a shift away from the sciences, towards the cheaper subjects in the arts and humanities. That arithmetic even threatens to impose the "Heseltine principle", introduced by the Secretary of State for the Environment, of penalising overspending by making cuts in future years.
I am not saying for a moment that all higher education and every institution is a model of efficiency, staffed entirely by brilliant, earnest academics and populated by successively hard-working students or researchers who churn out the most immediately convertible technological miracles. I am not saying that there is not room for better management; there always is. I am not saying that there is no need for a change in purpose, structure and finance in higher education. But, with the full support of everyone who has stopped to think about it—I include Conservative Members—I do say that the manner, scale, speed and purpose of the Government's cuts in resources and places in both sectors of higher education will cause the maximum damage to individuals, to institutions and to the national interest.
Let us consider the effect on individuals under a Government who are supposed to be committed entirely to individual emancipation. For 20,000 young individuals the cuts make nonsense of the Tory manifesto pledge that we must restore to every child, regardless of background, the chance to progress as far as his or her abilities will allow. When the Secretary of State said earlier this year that he hoped that the universities would admit as many

students as they could, consistent with their academic judgment, he was attempting to demonstrate that he has, after all, a sense of humour, because that is impossible with the kind of cuts he is imposing.
The fact is that 20,000 young people—who in any past year would have been able to gain admission to university on the basis of qualifications, the overwhelming majority of whom would stay the course and get their degrees—because of the cuts, and for no other reason, are being denied those 20,000 places. No one knows the comparable figure for higher education, but the number of 18-year-olds in the population will be 6·8 per cent. higher in 1982–83 than it was in 1979–80. The resources of universities are being cut by 11 per cent. and other higher education by even more. That will result in a reduction of student places in the same period of at least 5 per cent. but probably 8 per cent. It is obvious that the opportunities for higher education are being stolen from thousands who have qualified for it, who have aspired to it and who, even today, in schools and colleges throughout the country, are working towards getting the places that the Government are taking away.
Those who seek university education and are not among the traditional adolescent entrants are also victimised. The University Grants Committee's only concession to continuing education is transparent nonsense, because the fees charged and the requirements of self-financing other than for continuing education will effectively disqualify potential students on grounds of their economic situation. From Birkbeck College I read that for
part-time education, this will mean that the 1981–82 fee for an undergraduate course would rise from the present £97 to £360—an increase of 270 per cent.—and a postgraduate course would rise from £142 to £660—a massive 370 per cent. increase. The UGC and the Court"—
that is, of London—
which decides how London's allocation is to be divided between the colleges, cannot 'make' Birkbeck raise its fees—it will quite simply be 'assumed' that the College is receiving the higher fee income and the UGC grant will be reduced accordingly.
That is what I call baronial economics at its worst.
For institutions the cuts present, in the words of Sir Alec Merrison, managerial problems that cannot be solved in any sensible way. Those cuts do the same for teaching courses and research. The Government may, at astronomical cost, jettison lecturers, but how can they ensure that student demand shifts with the same smooth alacrity? They cannot. The consequence will be the most ridiculous inconsistency between subject and teacher provision and student subject demand. Against that background, how do the Government propose to ensure the continuation of research? By giving protection to the support of basic sciences, so they said in the March public expenditure White Paper. How can they do that when the places in which research is done and the people who do it are being weakened and run down by the university and polytechnic cuts? How can we have a dual system of research funding when the Government, in the view of all the chairmen of research councils, are chopping off one foot and the research councils can do no more, according to the CVCP, than offer a palliative for the serious damage that will be done as a result of the Government's decisions? Welcome, under a Tory Government, to the 1980s and the technological revolution!

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that at Bradford the professor in charge of research into cancer treatment through


chemotherapy has said that all that research may have to finish as a result of the cuts? Does not my hon. Friend think it illogical that, despite the Government's cuts, the number of students at London university who are to study ancient Egyptian, Hungarian and Dutch will remain the same?

Mr. Kinnock: As someone who never presumed to be a scholar but will always defend scholarship, I do not think that we should necessarily make those comparisons. What my hon. Friend says about Bradford is echoed by the pharmacists at Aston and by the applied chemists at Salford. We can measure the consequence of the cuts, without being overly macabre, by the additional deaths from the most miserable illnesses simply because the research is suspended and its produce destroyed.
Against that background, the damage to the national interest is obvious. The Government's definition of "national interest" is somewhat different from that of most sane people. It amounts to a repeated reference to cutting public spending, no matter what roots are torn up. However, that still does not explain the size of the cuts in higher education, neither does it help to gear higher education to the needs of society. It does not do much to explain why the cuts have been applied to cause the least trouble to the most remote of higher education institutions, while taking great 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. swathes from the institutions most sensitive to contemporary needs.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will admit that the further north the institution and the nearer it is to the polytechnic system, the bigger the cut and the greater the damage. In case anyone thinks that this is a mischievous bit of philistine rabble-rousing against the serene wisdom of the UGC or the dispassionate pruning of the Government, as the Under-Secretary says—I am never guilty of rabble-rousing, philistine or otherwise—let him look at the table published by The Times of the impact of cuts. That shows an immense disparity of treatment between the old and the new. There is to be a 30 per cent. cut in students and a 44 per cent. cut in grant to Salford between 1981 and 1983–84. But there is a 4 per cent. cut in students and a 4 per cent. cut in grant at Durham. There is to be a 22 per cent. cut in students and a 31 per cent. cut in grant at Aston for the same period and a 3 per cent. cut in students and a 13 per cent. cut in grant at Oxford. There is to be a 19 per cent. cut in students and a 33 per cent. cut in grant at Bradford and a 2 per cent. cut in students and a 10 per cent. cut in grant at Cambridge for the same period. Three out of the six worst-hit universities are former colleges of advanced technology. Four of those six are universities cited by the Association of University Teachers as prominent in part-time education. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not try to use the University of Bath to contest those arguments, because the administrative officer, Mr. Richard Mawditt, said in The Sunday Times:
Last year, 13 per cent. of our total income came from industry or public sources other than UGC grant".
I congratulate Bath wholeheartedly, as I have already said, but if patronage, no matter how worthy, is to become a major determinant of whether higher education survives we are observing the most gigantic backward step. If that is the criterion we should look at Aston and Salford, which do at least as well as Bath in attracting outside resources and in the production of PhDs.
The hit list goes on, and time grows short. I do not make these comparisons for invidious purposes. It would be silly to want even more to be afflicted. But the differences leap out, and they can do nothing other than reaffirm the view that with the UGC and the Government tradition has vanquished fairness. Universities that have made great efforts to provide breadth of access, relevance of courses, and sensitivity of provision in meeting contemporary needs and foreseeable change, have been rewarded with the most unjustifiable penalties. The UGC has passed a resounding and undeserved vote of no confidence in these by the reduction of resources and places. They are now more exposed to the demeaning and demoralising attrition which is the conscious policy of the Government in their attitude to higher education.
By inflicting this scale of cuts, the Government can now justify their own prejudices by imposing a financial regime that will fulfil its own prophecies. These are virile educational institutions that have been cut, and they will fight back. My great hope is that they will not have been so lamed by the cuts in resources as to forbid their survival and that other universities will support their efforts and not seek refuge in false security engendered by the narrow escape that they have made this time.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kinnock: No, I am sorry, but I want to get on so that other hon. Members may take part in the debate.
I should like to debate many other issues arising from the Government's attack on higher education, but there simply is not time to do that this evening. However, I should like to discuss the constitution, role and personnel of the UGC, now that it has been forced to change its function and which, whilst having to exercise an unprecedented power of direction, which shatters university autonomy, remains a body that is not subject to any effective public or parliamentary scrutiny.
The UGC's members exercise, as a criterion, the quality of research. I want to know, as do many thousands of people, precisely what that means. To whom is the UGC accountable? Is it simply an agency of cuts, doing the bidding of a guilty Government? What are its functions of advice, as defined in its explanatory handbook? Is the coincidence of gentle treatment of the universities from which UGC members come or at which they were educated merely a coincidence, or am I impugning the members of the UGC?
If I am impugning them, I deeply regret it and I publicly apologise now. But they will agree with me that the only way in which they can effectively counter and contradict—I would be pleased to see them do it—the various charges that are being made concerning this coincidence between their background and the incidence of cuts is now, themselves, to suggest to the Government that they change their constitution to conform with the realities now imposed upon them by the Government.
There are other matters that I should like to talk about. I should like to give a great deal of attention to the leaked document on public sector higher education financing, which we know is a proposition by the Government to introduce a structure that will facilitate cuts more easily and has nothing to do with the good husbandry of public resources.
I should like us to deliberate upon the need for a comprehensive system of higher education, the closing of


the binary divide, and the need to increase the proportions of each generation who get into higher education. Time does not permit us to do that. I should like to rehearse the policies developed by my own party, but, again, time forbids that.
What we need to know tonight, in any case, is what the Government now intend to do. Will they produce a supplementary UGC grant to stop this scarring of our higher education system, in some cases possibly beyond recovery? Will they now begin the scientific appraisal of the state of higher education by starting an inquiry or even a Royal Commission? Or will they continue to conduct themselves as they have been conducting themselves—entirely destructively, stopping at nothing, saving no value and safeguarding no interest, in order to achieve their foolish public expenditure targets?
The condition of higher education in Britain has, by the actions of the present Government over the past two years, been disastrously set back, as it will be by the Government's actions in years to come. That is the consensus from people of all political opinions and none who are in the universities as academics or in the communities around universities and understand their value. What the Government are doing is to contradict individual and national interests, to diminish our country's most worthwhile values and to disregard our best opportunities and our most fundamental needs. That is why we shall vote against the Government tonight and why we shall go on fighting these cuts until we can reverse them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House, recognising the need for restraint in public expenditure, notes that the Government continues to make substantial resources available for higher education and welcomes the recommendations of the University Grants Committee for the rationalisation of the university system to ensure a balanced provision.
At the end of his remarks the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) said that there were many other educational matters that he would like to raise on the Floor of the House. I should be happy to debate them at any time.

Mr. Kinnock: In your time.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman told us that this is our third debate on education during the period of the present Government. His speech on this occasion was typical of his speeches on the two previous occasions. It was full of numerous and unfair attacks on the University Grants Committee. It is no defence to impugn people's integrity and then say "If I am impugning them, I withdraw it." The hon. Gentleman's speech was full of wild exaggeration, hyperbole and statements that could not possibly be justified. I take just one or two.
The hon. Gentleman said that the UGC, in the division of its money, had been biased in favour of the South

against the North. I remind him that both in expenditure and in numbers it has made fewer reductions in Scotland than in Wales, and fewer reductions in Wales than in England.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlisle: No.

Mr. Canavan: Why not?

Mr. Carlisle: Because there is only a short time, I have a lot to say, and many hon. Members wish to speak.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty used the phrase "malevolent policies". He talked about the "awful results" of the funding and financing of universities as a result of our policies on overseas students. Is he not aware that there are today in our universities, on a policy of full funding, 7 per cent. more overseas students than had been provided for by the funding policy of the previous Government? How, therefore, is that so dreadful?
The hon. Member talked about the weakening of the research effort. He said that we had stolen the opportunities from people for higher education. He had the nerve at one stage to say that, as a result of these policies, there would be 20,000 fewer places per year in universities than there had been in any past year. I shall deal with that point shortly, as I come to it. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should check his facts before he repeats what others say.
The fact is that the hon. Gentleman gave the impression throughout his speech that the Government were somehow involved in a destruction of the university system.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Yes, quite so.

Mr. Carlisle: Opposition Members ought to think for a moment to realise how ridiculous that statement is. We are not involved in the destruction of the university system. We are involved in a necessary reappraisal of university provision in Britain in the light of the country's needs to restrain public expenditure, in the recognition of the possibility of rationalisation within universities, and in the face of the fact that over the next decade and a half there will be a drop of 30 per cent. in the number of people of university age.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's hyperbole and exaggeration today, and to his comment that the proposals in these policies were to reduce the number of places by 20,000 as against any past year in our universities, is for me to remind him that even if—I repeat "even if'—the UGC's assumptions as to student numbers are in practice realised, we shall probably have by 1984–85 as many university places for home students as we had in the last full academic year when the previous Government were in power—in other words, 1977–78.
The hon. Gentleman does not realise that there are now many thousands more in the universities than in 1979. When the hon. Gentleman derides me, apparently for suggesting last year that I hoped that the universities would make available to students as many opportunities as possible within the money made available to them, I remind him that I made that statement against a background of the university vice-chancellors stating that a system of level funding for that year would inevitably lead to substantial reductions in places. I did not believe it. I said the reverse. The hon. Gentleman knows that last year, faced with level funding, far from there occurring a


reduction in the number of places in universities, the universities took 7,000 more home students than in the previous year.

Mr. Martin Flannery: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I shall give way in a moment. When the hon. Member for Bedwellty talks as he does, and as the motion does, about cuts in resources, which is right, because there will be cuts, I remind him that in this coming educational year we shall be spending £1,300 million on our universities. That takes no account of the support of students at the universities. We shall be spending £1,800 million on higher education. That is 16 per cent. of the total education budget, which is 10 per cent. of public expenditure or 5 per cent. of the gross national product.

Mr. Flannery: The Secretary of State's figures are produced on a false basis. Last night, our education group discussed with the Association of University Teachers, the figures that he has just given. Is it not a reality that in the 1980s there will be far more 18-year-olds—approximately 25 per cent. More—and, therefore, more applications to go to universities? Is he dodging that fact and pretending that it does not exist?

Mr. Carlisle: I am not dodging that fact. I was going to deal with it. It is right that in 1982–83 the number of 18-year-olds will rise. From the middle of the 1980s to the middle of the 1990s the number of 18-year-olds will fall by 30 per cent. I am not disputing that the reductions in expenditure for which we ask are bound to have some effect during that period of the hump. To suggest, as the hon. Gentleman did, that we have removed for all time 20 per cent. of the places that have been available in any past year, when the University Grants Committee is proposing to provide in 1984–85 for a similar number of places to those that were in existence in 1977–78, is a wild exaggeration.
I doubt whether those assumptions will be proved right. They were based on the assumed number of places in 1979–80 on the then basis of funding. With level funding, the universities actually increased their number of places by 7,000 last year. They cannot now be heard to say, having achieved what they said they could not achieve, that they expect the degree of drop that the University Grants Committee implies.
I must briefly remind the House that one of the tasks the Government were elected to undertake was to reduce, where possible, the level of public expenditure and to reduce the burden on industry and on the individual. In that position, education, with the amount that it spends, cannot be exempt, and universities, important as they are, cannot be sacrosanct.

Mr. Stuart Holland: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I shall give way in a moment. All money spent, even in universities, has to be raised. I ask the House to recognise the size of cuts we are making against the background of the country's needs and the country's ability to pay. Of course, hon. Members want the best opportunities possible for our children. That depends, in the end, on extending the country's economic base to enable us to make that provision.

Mr. Holland: This argument is clearly crucial to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's justification for the cuts. Since public enterprise in this country represents less

than 15 per cent. of gross domestic product, the effect of an injection of £100 into higher education is that £85 worth of goods and services is supplied by the private sector. Public spending in education sustains rather than drains the private sector. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's whole case is wrongly based.

Mr. Carlisle: Public expenditure on higher education has to be met out of taxes and rates. We face a proposal that over the next three years we should reduce the home funding of students following a period of continuing expansion in university education over the previous two decades. The atmosphere has been such that it has seemed natural that expansion should take place. However, it took place against warnings—delivered as long ago as 1969 by Mrs. Shirley Williams—of the need for universities to adopt a realistic attitude.

Mr. Canavan: A traitor.

Mr. Carlisle: Over the period covering the years 1960, 1970 and 1980, the university student population has risen from 96,000, to 203,000, to 265,000. The full population in higher education has gone up from 179,000, to 429,000, to 466,000.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlisle: I am sorry. I shall not give way.
Even without the problems of financial restraint, the fall in population that we face from the mid-1980s means that this sort of expansion cannot continue. Some reduction and rationalisation is essential to meet the substantial drop in those of that age group who apply.

Dr. McDonald: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I have given way three times. Many hon. Members wish to speak. I do not propose to give way again.
Faced with the need to make that reduction, it is important that the reductions in expenditure that have to be made, for which the Government must take full responsibility—and I do—are made in a way that causes the least possible disruption to the university system in the short term while starting to prepare that system for the needs of the future. That is the task that the Government entrusted to the University Grants Committee.
Of course, the committee has never suggested that the task of allocating a reduced recurrent grant is palatable. It is obviously far more attractive for the committee to be the arbiter of growth rather than the contractor. However, it undertook that task. I, for one, am grateful to it. I reject the impugning of the members of the committee by the hon. Member for Bedwellty.
I am sure that we are right to maintain the convention that while the Government decide how much the country can afford to spend on the universities generally, there should be no political interference in the detailed allocation of that sum between individual universities. It seems that some Labour Members wish to see political interference in the allocation of money, but if they think for a moment they will realise that they should not. The relationship between myself and the University Grants Committee in this year has been identical to that between a Minister of Education and the committee on any previous occasion.
Under a system which has served us well for over half a century, the UGC decides on the amount of grant for


each university and advises on the implications for each university. But the UGC has to work within the resources made available by the Government. For that I take responsibility. It cannot create additional resources and is no more responsible for the size of the total sum it has to allocate than is the hon. Member for Bedwellty.
Individual vice-chancellors reserve and often use the freedom to complain from time to time when they do not like the decisions of that committee. But I do not think that any vice-chancellor has ever advocated any system other than the University Grants Committee, and I know that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, as a body, does not. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has interrupted two or three times from a sedentary position. The chairman and the members of the University Grants Committee have my full confidence in their integrity and the way that they have done their job. In view of the comments that I have heard the hon. Gentleman make earlier in a sotto voce manner, I should also like him to know that the chairman and two-thirds of the membership of that committee were appointed not by me but by my Labour predecessor.

Mr. Kinnock: I accept entirely what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says about the nature of his relationships with the UGC and the integrity of its members. However, does he accept that his Government's decision to impose cuts on the UGC fundamentally changed the conditions of the relationship and that that therefore requires a change in the constitution of the committee?

Mr. Carlisle: It does not require a change in the constitution of the UGC. What it requires, and what I have said twice tonight, is my accepting responsibility for the task that we are asking the UGC to do. I do not believe that it is right to make any change in the constitutional arrangement. The Government lay down the overall amount that is available, and the UGC, which is a body of academics with wide experience and of certain business people who are brought together for a difficult purpose, should be responsible for cuts. It has operated in that way for over half a century.
In approaching its task, the UGC has decided that the reduction required could not be distributed equally between institutions and fields of study without doing serious damage to the system and that it would therefore have to act selectively. That involves reducing the range of subjects taught at some universities, with consequent closures or radical reductions of some departments. The House must, however, face the fact that a necessary consequence of such an approach is that some universities must do better and some must do worse.
In making its decisions the UGC has had regard to the fact that it will affect the structure of the university system for the next decade and more. It has tried to ensure that, within the resources available, the system is fitted to meet the national needs over that period. I take responsibility for the overall reduction. In its allocation of recurrent grant for 1981–82 and its provisional allocation to 1983–84, the UGC has provided for a change in the distribution of students away from the arts and towards science and engineering. It has provided within the overall reduced number an increase in numbers in engineering and technology, an increase in the numbers that it assumes will

be reading mathematics and physical science, an increase in the number of medical students and an increase in the number of students in business studies.
I fully understand the comment in the press and in the House that there appears to be a divorce between what I have said about the overall position and the fact that three of the universities that are former colleges of advanced technology stand high on the list of places where reductions have been made. They appear to have suffered badly.
The reasons for decisions on individual universities are a matter for the UGC, which takes many factors into account. However, I repeat that the places lost in technology or engineering have been more than compensated for elsewhere in the university system. While overall numbers are to fall by 5 per cent., the UGC has assumed that engineering and technology numbers will be increased by about 2 per cent.
Thirty universities are expected to increase their technology numbers, five to hold them constant and seven to decrease them. Of the 13 "technological" universities, three have been specifically asked to increase their engineering numbers and two to decrease them. In the remaining eight such universities, numbers are expected to remain constant or to increase slightly.
The major cuts at Aston and Salford are not in engineering but in other subjects. Bradford has been asked to concentrate on engineering, with no loss of numbers.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Does it make sense to require cuts in a technological university that mean that all the science departments will be cut by about 62 per cent., with 500 academic and non-academic job losses, a 32 per cent. cut in the budget and a huge student loss? That is killing a technological university and some departments are closing.

Mr. Carlisle: The UGC is responsible for dividing money between universities and it has to take many considerations into account. It has attempted to concern itself with the overall national provision. The committee will answer for its decisions about individual universities, but the decisions must be considered against a background of an overall increase in the number of engineering and technological places. Indeed, the UGC has suggested that Bradford university ought to be concentrating on engineering and should have no loss in that area.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Many of us, including my right hon. and learned Friend's Labour predecessor, welcome the UGC's new approach, away from an across-the-board, formula-based approach towards more selective treatment, with universities such as Bradford being encouraged to do what they specialise and do well in. However, is my right hon. and learned Friend happy about the way that part-time students are to be treated? The Conservative Party ought to encourage such students because their motivation is of crucial importance.

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was about to say that many people have been calling for a shift away from the arts and towards engineering and technology for a long time. That will be the overall effect of the proposals, though they will mean different things to different universities.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty mentioned research. Despite the declining level of the total programme for


education and science, the Government's support for science through the research councils is being maintained at broadly the current levels. The UGC is anxious to sustain its share of the dual support system for research in universities and has paid particular attention to the needs of research in the allocation of both recurrent and equipment grants.
The importance attached to preservation of the research base by both the Government and the UGC is another aspect of our determination to ensure that at the end of this exercise we have perhaps a leaner university system but one better oriented to national needs and operating within the context of what the nation can afford.
Some journalists and hon. Members have talked as if grants to universities were decided by drawing numbers out of a hat. I am not privy to the discussions of the UGC, but I know that the allocation of grant is a highly sophisticated process. The present exercise has been going on for many months. We do not have people present on the UGC when the allocation is made.
The present exercise has been going on for many months. It includes detailed discussion with every university and is built on the committee's contacts with the universities' cumulative expertise over a long period. In making the allocations the UGC rightly recognises that students choose courses rather than the nearest university. It is concerned, therefore, with national rather than local provision and with the need to maintain excellence.
The UGC has examined the range of courses being taught, the quality of education provided, the desirability of supporting each university in what it does best and the desirability of achieving the most economic operation possible. It has sought to ensure that the need to make savings does not lead to the extinction of minority subjects and to ensure the protection of the research base and the continuing viability of individual institutions.
Comments have been made about the way in which universities have decided to reduce expenditure. It is interesting that the Public Accounts Committee today published its report on universities. It states:
The Government's plans for reductions in the future expenditure on universities will clearly require substantial modification of the present pattern of provision. This will in turn require strong guidance from the UGC to ensure that the changes take account as effectively and economically as possible of future national needs for university education. We are pleased to note that the UGC intends to be highly selective in applying the necessary cuts in universities grant allocations.
I commend that view to the House. I ask the House to throw out the motion and to support the amendment.

Sir Harold Wilson: I shall be brief, but I must first declare an interest—although not financial—as chancellor of Bradford university, one of a number of technological universities set up by the Governments of 1964–70 as part of the drive to help industry by increasing the number of technologically-trained recruits to engineering and related industries.
My criticisms relate to two major retrograde decisions by the Government for universities and to technological universities in particular. The Secretary of State sought to defend himself by suggesting that we were criticising the University Grants Committee. My criticism is not of the UGC but of the amount of money given to it by the Department. The right hon. Gentleman should have defended that rather than following a red herring.
The first mistake that the Government made was to reduce the number of overseas technological students entering British universities. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention that. They discouraged them by increasing fees and by other deterrents. That will sabotage our export prospects for a generation ahead. It will reduce orders for British goods in years to come.
In Bradford, and in a number of other institutions, I understand, all engineering, electrical engineering and other engineering students have to spend almost a third of their undergraduate careers working in industry—on the job and with their hands, the hard way.
Commonwealth and foreign students learn techniques based on British engineering practices. They forge a link with British factories and firms. In 10 to 20 years, when they become more senior in their domestic industries—and that has already happened—they will be likely to turn to the British firms where they worked and studied and place orders with them. That is already happening. Bradford university has been turning out such graduates since the late 1960s. Now, however, because of the Government's policy, the number of overseas students is due to fall, from 680 last year in Bradford to 225 in 1984–85. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman know that when he addressed the House? Did he make any attempt to defend that fall? It will mean a corresponding fall in British exports over many years to come.
My other main point relates to a requirement that we have always enforced in Bradford on our students reading for technology degrees. In addition to their period of work in British firms, they have to spend two terms and the intervening vacation working in factories or other places of work in another European country, and not only EEC countries. They have to learn the language—French, German, Finnish, Serbo-Croat or whatever—and on their return they have to write a long thesis in the language of the country where they have been working. To make sure that they have not slipped a bribe to a student in the modern languages school, they then have to face an oral interrogation on their thesis which takes place in the language itself.
In years to come some of those technologically-trained students—I am talking here about our students, not overseas students—may become salesmen, selling overseas and becoming more and more technological But, more than that, as any hon. Member who has been involved in negotiating overseas contracts will know, the technologist is now as much involved in the contract negotiations as the salesman, and possibly more so. The salesman opens up the deal, but without the engineer the company will not be able to secure the contract. The engineer has to explain why method A is more reliable and productive than method B.
As an illustration, in a country with an alternating electricity supply and a traditional way of building a plant, the engineer has to explain why that method will have to go and why the plant should be built in another way—perhaps because of direct current or whatever. He is the person who helps to secure the contract by showing buyers what they require, sometimes better than they know themselves, especially in a developing country.
I should like to mention another inevitable result of the Government's policy. I am grateful for the Secretary of State's preoccupation with Bradford. I wish that he had never started it but, since he did, at least he has tried to defend himself, albeit with little conviction. There is a point


that I do not think he will know about, despite the fullness of his brief, but he should know about it. A short time ago I went to Bradford for a very special ceremony. My distinguished constituent, the Earl of Derby—not a member of my constituency party, I hasten to add— in his capacity as president of the cancer research foundation, presented the university with the foundation's award for the year.
There is no medical school at the university, although I understand that the Bradford medical officer of health is an honorary professor. In his citation, the noble Lord spoke of about 20 sufferers from breast cancer being completely cured, apart from others who were more seriously ill and whose life was lengthened but who were not cured. In the face of that, can the Secretary of State justify the heartlessness involved in his proposals, or will he say that he did not know about the medical aspect, and that he will have to look still further at engineering, which means cutting exports still further for the next 20 years? There is no way out for him on the basis of that policy.
The last three lord mayors of Bradford, irrespective of party—this is a completely non-political matter—have all made the work on breast cancer, the work of the oncology unit, their special charity. Now the Government are to smash the unit—clearly not through malice, but simply through ignorance.
Apart from that special area of the university's work, I hope that in a few minutes I have made clear the consequences of the cuts for one university. From technological exports to cancer research in Bradford, and no doubt elsewhere, we are—I repeat the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) —selling the seed corn, and for what? We are doing it for a small, short-term economy in current expenditure, a small fraction of what, to judge from recent financial reports, is lost in a couple of miles along the Embankment between the Treasury and the Bank, as we read nearly every day in the financial columns.
For all the reasons that I have given, from just one university, just one part of the country—I am not trying to suggest that they are being uniquely badly treated, though they are being treated worse than most others—every hon. Member, of whatever party, who is concerned about Britain's economic performance, and above all our exports in the short term and long term alike, has a clear duty to oppose the Government's proposals and policy.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). He will appreciate that, although he has written the history of his own Government, other people will also write that history. Any of them looking back at the record of higher education since the war will find it difficult to be enthusiastic about any of the actions taken by any Government.
Until the early 1960s, too little was done. Then too much was done, too quickly and without any real understanding of the difficulties and perils of expanding too swiftly. In a single leap we went from 25 universities to 45, from 119,000 students to 300,000. Other sectors of higher education were also dramatically expanded very quickly.

Dr. McDonald: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Rhodes James: I was about to say that the purpose was admirable. I supported it then, and I support it now. But the manner in which it was done—

Sir Harold Wilson: What about the Open University?

Mr. Rhodes James: I support that, too.
The manner in which the expansion was carried out was open to some criticism. We now face the results.
I regret the circumstances of this debate. I regret the necessity behind them, but I strongly believe that we cannot go on as we have been. This has long been evident to the vice-chancellors of many universities. What they say in private is often very different from what they say in public.

Sir Harold Wilson: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am one of the most voracious readers of his history books. I always find them extremely accurate and entertaining. For that reason, I should not want the hon. Gentleman to fall into error tonight. He referred to the Open University. When I proposed the Open University, which I did before becoming leader of my party, the proposal was opposed in the House by the Conservative Party. At one stage it said that it would abolish it if it was elected. Thank goodness, it did not do so. At any rate, it proposed to alter the rules by having students aged between 18 and 25 years enter it to save expenditure on the existing universities. That is the record of the hon. Gentleman's party.

Mr. Rhodes James: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I was not even a member of the Conservative Party then, so I cannot take any blame for that. The right hon. Gentleman also knows that I am the only Member who has held a senior position in higher education. I have supported the Open University. Like many others, at the beginning I was sceptical about its possibilities, but I accept that the right hon. Gentleman was right about that matter.
One of the most important points that the House must realise, as must the higher education sector, is that until recently it never occurred to most people in higher education to justify what they were doing or the high unit costs often involved. In their own eyes, universities are so sacrosanct and so untouchable by the pressures that affect other parts of the public sector that they have become remote from public opinion and concern. If the universities have few friends today outside their own portals, many of them have only themselves to blame. The mounting resentment against higher education, which I lament but which exists, has been compounded by the effects of the economic recession during the past five years.
The circumstances of academic life, including security of tenure and vastly improved salaries—quite rightly, I was involved in the universities' salaries negotiations—are almost unimaginable in industry and commerce. The circumstances of a student are unimaginable to most school leavers. If we are not careful, those resentments will develop into something very much more serious. I say that as someone who has worked for several years in higher education, who believes passionately in it and is a true friend of the universities. I hope that they will take it from me that I have seen a remorseless decline in public support and interest in the universities. I can tell the vice-chancellors and principals that they have more to worry


about than the current proposals of the UGC. I am glad to say that some of them recognise that. I only wish that more of them did so. That is part of the sombre background against which the UGC has to work and the Government consider its proposals.
In general, I welcome the strategy proposed by the UGC. The general strategy is right. It brings long-overdue common sense and reality to the position. I emphasise the words "general strategy" because there are certain elements in all proposals given to all universities that are controversial, that will cause difficulties, and which can be discussed seriously between vice-chancellors and the UGC. The general strategy, which is a modest movement away from the arts to science, engineering and medicine, is fundamentally right. I would have been more radical, but I recognise the difficulties under which the UGC operates, and especially the diffuculty of timing.
Two key factors of higher education worry me, namely, the question of timing—over how many years these changes can be achieved—and the problem of capital cost. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) was right in one sense. The natural sciences, engineering and research are the expensive parts of higher education. The arts are relatively cheap. It would be a tragedy—one which the UGC has avoided—if we found that economies were being made in the fundamentally important areas. That is why I support the general strategy of the UGC. I do not go entirely down the Finniston road. I do not accept the argument of many that all the arts are useless. There is something about the love of learning for its own sake and scholarship for its own sake which is precious in universities and higher education. But that having been said, and in view of that awful term "the relevance" of higher education to the problems of Britain, the change in balance which the UGC recommends should be supported by the House.
I wish to make one point which is not touched upon in the UGC report, and has not been touched upon in the debate. I refer to the status of what is called the mature student. I have become increasingly convinced that the mature student is one of the most hopeful and important areas. He may have had some higher education previously, which then turns out to be irrelevant. Another sector is important. There are those who were disadvantaged in earlier life and want the opportunity to change their career and specialty. That is the person to whom we should address our attention.

Mr. Christopher Price: rose—

Mr. Rhodes James: I am sorry that the UGC could not deal with that issue. It will be one of the key questions in future.
I give a general endorsement to the strategy of the UGC. However, I confess to a growing unhappiness about higher education generally. It is costly, it is not very productive, it contains serious and, in my view, unnecessary elements of duplication and overlapping and it is not serving the nation and its future as well as it could do and as well as it must do. In short, we need a strategy and a coherence for higher education which has been lacking since the war.
Within its limits, the UGC has tried to do what it can. However, we lack an organisation that can take a general view of universities, polytechnics, colleges of further

education and higher education as a whole. That is what we need. We shall not meet the overall problem by dealing with one section of higher education at a time.
I have thought hard about this problem. I confess that I cannot offer any particular answer. I can see the present weaknesses and I can see the potentialities. There is tremendous talent in Britain which could and should be developed through a better system of higher education. Currently we have an overlapping and expensive system that in general is not as efficient and effective as we wish. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider die establishment of a body, preferably a non-political one—especially after this debate—to view for the first time the higher education system as a whole.
I make that suggestion seriously, although I appreciate that it is rather weak. It is an attempt to respond to the fundamental problem that lies behind the debate and the fundamental problem with which the UGC is trying to cope. We hope to have a far more effective, larger, more efficient and cost-effective higher education system. At the moment we do not have it except in certain centres of excellence. When the debate has concluded, when the speeches have been made and when the votes are being cast, I hope that for the first time for many years the House will address itself seriously to the real problems of higher education.

Mr. John Golding: The University of Keele has suffered a savage cut of 30 per cent. in three to four years. It is ironic that the cuts have been made at a time when Keele is increasing in popularity year by year. Student applications increased by 7 per cent. in 1979–80 and by 17 per cent. in 1980–81 compared with increases of 1 per cent. to 3 per cent. nationally. The cuts will cause great damage.
I am disturbed about the implications for unemployment, which in my constituency has doubled in a year. Young people who do not find university places will be competing with those less able for jobs and other opportunities. It is the youngsters who are less able who will suffer most from the cuts that the Government are making.
I am concerned about the damage that will be done to education. I am concerned that Keele will be forced to discontinue Russian studies. It makes economic sense to produce yong people with a degree in Russian and science, as is done at Keele. The argument that too few youngsters are taught Russian at school does not carry weight at Keele, which produces its own students of Russian through the foundation year. Why cut Russian at Keele? Do we want to make it harder to trade with the Eastern bloc and to exchange scientific and technical information? Is classical Greek and Latin at Oxford or Cambridge a better investment for this country? I do not think so.
The foundation year introduced by the great Lord Lindsay is seriously under threat because of the cuts. The course is unique, providing a good general education to 40 per cent. to 45 per cent. of Keele undergraduates. It is of enormous help to mature students. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) about that. In providing language and science tuition it fills a gap that is left unfilled for many youngsters at some of our schools. At Keele it is possible for someone who goes to study history to complete a transfer course and go on to study chemistry and Russian. It is tailored to meet


modern needs and provides that general education which, for one reason or another, is often denied to working class youngsters.
This Government deny not only work but education to our young people. Their policy is one of barbarism and one which they should drop before they smash yet another of our institutions.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Having listened to the arguments from the Opposition Benches, one would have thought that we were about to exterminate—to use the chosen word of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock)—the whole university sector. However, the facts are different.
The number of home students will return to the figure of 1977–78. I believe that the present number of students is not endowed with a mystical quality. It is not hewn on tablets of stone that have been handed down from Elizabeth House or even 29 Tavistock Square. In many of our universities there are a substantial number of partly filled courses in various subjects, for example modern languages. That represents an inefficient use of scarce resources. It must be remembered that a nation's resources are finite and if they are misused or wasted in one area, that waste must be at the expense of another sector. It must be to our general advantage to ensure that we get the best value for money. There is no virtue in continuing to subsidise the inefficient at the expense of the needy.
At this time when the public sector is being generally reduced and other parts of the educational system with even fewer resources and even less room for manoeuvre are carrying their fair share of economies, it must follow that universities cannot be excluded from the need to make savings. That must be the case in equity. Can a special case be made for the universities as opposed to other sectors in education? In addition, it is equally well known that although our universities are research-intensive and generally cost-effective in the sense that the majority of students at the completion of their three-year course come out with a degree, the staff-student ratio is still high. There must be a clear need in our present economic circumstances to live within our means and to make savings. Surely those savings must be borne by all sectors of education.
Some of the partly-filled courses that I described earlier will be closed, but in all probability the student population taking those courses will remain basically the same. That is because students will attend the remaining courses, ensuring that they are completely filled. In anyone's language, that represents a better use of existing resources. Surely full courses must represent better value for money than a partly-filled course.
It is also worth recalling that the number of students who attend certain courses sometimes results in oversupply in a particular discipline—for example, law, accountancy, environmental sciences, social studies and even certain arts subjects. This point was well made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. There is an actual increase—not a decrease—in engineering, physics, mathematics, the hard technological sciences, business studies and science and technology generally. In

other words, the vocational courses that are necessary for the future development of our country's economy are not being damaged or reduced.

Mr. Cryer: But they are.

Mr. Pawsey: Not at all.

Mr. Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the universities of Bradford, Salford and Aston are particularly directed towards technological courses and that Bradford is facing the complete ending of part of its courses? Indeed, the three universities—and Bradford in particular—feel that this is a preliminary to their complete abolition.

Mr. Pawsey: What the hon. Gentleman says may be true for the three universities that he has selected, but the total number of students attending the courses that I have described is increasing. [Interruption.] With every respect, the hon. Gentleman can huff and puff as much as he likes, but the facts are there. I do not doubt that, when he refers to his brief, he will find that what I have said is true.
It is my belief that the UGC is actively promoting a case for the sciences, technology and mathematics, as opposed to arts and social sciences. As has already been said in this House, that is surely a positive move in the right direction. I describe it as positive discrimination, and the effect of it will be twofold.
The casual and relatively unplanned growth of the universities throughout the 1960s and 1970s resulted in a substantial increase in the number of social scientists and arts graduates. It may be argued that that unprecedented development advanced the cause of liberal education. It may have directly benefited the individual student who was pursuing his own interests and enthusiasms, but those courses were not always to the advantage of the community at large.
One wonders how much of a positive disadvantage it was to our country's economy to see a substantial number of very able brains being creamed off, away from vocational studies. They may have been directed into what individual students decided were more desirable or easier disciplines, but none the less those disciplines do not materially assist industry or commerce. I am arguing that we should be endeavouring to channel more of our able brains into the wealth-creating sectors, because at the moment too many are flying off at a tangent. Instead of becoming wealth creators, they are becoming wealth consumers.

Mr. Kinnock: If the hon. Gentleman is in favour of more vocational orientation, will he join the Opposition in voting against the enormous cuts in polytechnic funding, bearing in mind that 80 per cent. of their students are in vocationally related studies?

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If he will be patient, he will discover that I shall be answering his point a little later.
I am arguing that the wealth consumers should be making a positive contribution to the private sector. It can also be argued that the proposed economies, by focusing more attention on science and technology, will be strengthening the bond between industry and the universities. That must surely be to the positive advantage of our economy. It is a move that is long overdue.
I also believe that a reduction in the number of university places—and here I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Bedwellty—will stimulate further and higher education, with more changes in the curriculum, towards a more vocational structure, and with fewer academic subjects being taught. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that that must be to the advantage of our economy at large.
There is a belief that some universities will flourish as sectors of excellence, maintaining a clear commitment to teaching and scholarship. It is fair to say that others will have their research and teaching reduced. That need not necessarily be bad, because the result of not having controls on what was taught and where it was taught was the proliferation of small departments, which have not always been distinguished by either their research or their teaching. Perhaps that is best underlined by the comments of the chairman of the UGC, who argued in the autumn of 1980 that a philosophy of laissez faire that was acceptable in a growing economy and based on university populations of about 10,000 was no longer tenable. He said:
We want everyone to be good at some things, but we want you to concentrate on your strengths, and not support pallid growths which are now never likely to reach maturity".
The argument about excellence is not new and it is certainly practised in countries such as Germany.
Finally, no one likes or wishes to make cuts of any kind, but it is wrong to paint my right hon. and learned Friend as some kind of latter-day Herod, anxious to slaughter the hapless universities. That is not so much bullrushes as bull. Our problem is the clear need to reconcile our desires with our resources, to find a middle path between spending what we can afford and cuts that cause real damage. I believe that those who are unbiased and fair-minded will feel that the UGC has got it about right.

Mr. A. J. Beith: As a large number of hon. Members wish to take part in this short debate I shall try to be brief.
First, the debate cannot be merely about the universities. It is about the whole of higher education. What is often referred to rather misleadingly as the maintained sector of higher education—the polytechnic and college sector—has been sustaining substantial cuts over a longer period and to a greater extent than the universities. That has already had a serious impact and will continue to do so.
It is worrying that we so often discuss cuts in the universities and the issues facing them as though the other sector did not exist. That is a fundamental mistake but one to which we are almost driven by the lack of a body with responsibility for concerting planning in both sectors. We talk about the rise or fall of particular subjects in one sector without any reference to whether the same subjects are rising or falling in the other.
This emphasises my party's belief that we need a national body in the maintained sector of higher education. Such a body should have some of the characteristics of the UGC and should enjoy some of the independence that the UGC enjoys. It should also work as closely as possible with the UGC. Indeed, I should like the binary line eventually to disappear—not because I wish to make universities of the whole of the maintained sector but

because there is such a tremendous overlap between the activities of the two sectors that we cannot rationally discuss them for much longer in total isolation.
Despite the many criticisms of the UGC's decisions, I do not think that many people in the universities would exchange it either for the system by which the polytechnics are currently run or for direct control by the Department of Education and Science. I believe that it has to be selective in its approach, although it would have been better if we had seen more signs of selective activity in the area of expansion when this could have been clone more effectively. That is not to say that there was not some selectivity even in those clays. I remember when Durham took a fancy to the idea of starting its own medical school in Durham with another down the road in Newcastle. The UGC moved in on that occasion, so there was some selectivity even in those days.
Much, however, has been left to be done in the period of contraction. That is bound to make it almost impossible to achieve better use of resources in the universities, especially against a background of the Government's severely damaging policy on overseas students That policy has a direct effect on the financial viability of institutions and courses and all the appalling consequences for the future to which the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) referred. It is a very short-sighted policy.
In addition, particularly in the university sector, although this may be almost as true in the polytechnics, there are problems relating to the tenure of academic staff. These make any rapid adjustment or cutting almost impossible. Those problems cannot be overcome in a fair and just way without substantial sums being disbursed in redundancy payments and in buying out existing tenure rights. It is, therefore, wrong to imagine that the universities can cope easily with this situation.
I also believe that the present level of cuts on which the Government are engaged is based upon a mistaken view of what will happen over the next few years. The immediate impact of the cuts will come at a time when the number of 18-year-olds is increasing. The peak impact of the present cuts will come in 1982 or 1983 when more 18-year-olds then ever before will be trying to get into the universities. We shall then have the abandonment of the Robbins pinciple—which the Government have already admitted in a reply to a parliamentary question of mine—that those who are qualified for higher education will be able to obtain it. That principle will be abandoned in the peak years because of the impact of these cuts.
It would be right to look at what will be the impact in subsequent years when the numbers may fall away, but we shall be presented with other opportunities then. I see those years, when the number of 18-year-olds will reduce, as the time further to develop the life-long opportunities that the education system should present. I have never believed that universities and polytechnics should be the preserve of 18 to 21-year-olds. I have always wanted to see more people coming back for retraining or re-education or because they missed earlier opportunities.
That will be made more difficult by the fees policy. The example of Birkbeck college has been quoted. That college has a marvellous record of bringing into higher education people who would not otherwise have had access to it. The fees policy on which the UGC letter is based will not allow that to continue. We have also seen the impact of the fees policy on the Open University. As a result of lack of adequate maintenance provisions and the


lack of new opportunities for financial support for mature students, we have seen the closing off of the opportunities that we ought to create for life-long education.
What worries me most is that the things we ought to be doing we will not be able to do under this programme. I have mentioned life-long education. Engineering and technology are another obvious example. During the last two days, I have had lengthy discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper), as well as a number of others who are concerned about the University of Salford. That university has sought to relate its work in technology to the industry of the area around it. At present, it provides 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom's engineering graduates. In addition, 63 per cent. of its graduates go into industry and commerce as against 23 per cent. nationally. We ought to be encouraging the sort of things that it is doing. I am deeply worried about the impact of the UGC's present proposals on universities such as that.
Indeed, some of the UGC's proposals intrigue me. An hon. Member spoke earlier as if the UGC letter meant that social sciences and the "soft disciplines" would be abandoned in favour of the things he thinks we most need. But if we study the UGC letter we find that, although it wants to reduce student numbers in the social sciences, it wants to increase research in the social sciences. That is a specific objective. The letter implies that there will be no redundancies or major reductions in staffing in the social sciences, because the UGC wants to improve ratios and allow for more research. I am not sure whether that is the right balance.
We do not want a general reduction to mediocrity in the universities. We are, therefore, worried about the level of cuts. If there are to be cuts they must be applied in a reasonably selective way. In those circumstances it is inevitable that some courses will disappear from the present system. I am profoundly worried that this is taking place without any coherent planning between the university, polytechnic and college sectors.
We need high-quality teaching and worthwhile research that are closely related to the community and all its needs—its economic, technological, cultural and spiritual needs. In my view, this programme will not serve those ends.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I listened with great attention to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). He described the Government as innumerate. He went on to give us a fascinating geography lesson. He said "The further north, the greater the damage". He informed a slightly startled House that the cut at Durham was 4 per cent. in grants and 4 per cent. in students. I am sure that the citizens of Durham will be startled to find that overnight they have been transported to the South.
I also listened with great care to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) said about looking at higher education as a whole. That is absolutely true. I have been told that time and again by the lecturers at the University of Lancaster.
It is now 20 years since, following the Robbins report, the decision was taken to establish a university at the

northern end of Lancashire, which hitherto had been totally neglected. I am delighted that Lancaster was chosen for the honour. At the beginning, we had the great fortune to have a prudent vice-chancellor and to have as university secretary from the beginning until only a few months ago a gifted man, Stephen Jeffreys, who watched expenditure extremely carefully. That care is standing us in good stead now. His successor is carrying on this prudent financing.
Like most universities, at the beginning, the staff-student ratio was generous as faculties built up their student numbers and as they "grew into" the basic minimum of staff requirements in the new departments. Over the years that imbalance has been corrected and since 1973 the cost per student in real terms has been reduced by no less than 9 per cent. Administrative costs, in proportion to our budget, have been reduced from 7·2 per cent. in 1975 to 6·2 per cent. in 1981. That is no small feat. Still more impressively, our energy consumption has been reduced by 37 per cent. by means of strict and sophisticated monitoring devices.
In an effort to build up resources, to widen the experience of students and to make a contribution to the wider educational scene, strenuous and very successful efforts were made to attract undergraduates and graduates from mnay parts of the world and particularly close links were established with Malaysia and Singapore. A steady stream of undergraduates from the Far East has come to the university, to the great benefit of all concerned and not least—as several hon. Members have said—to the advantageous prospect of expanding trade to those countries. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) made that point.
It was, therefore, a sad blow to us in Lancaster when the Labour Government imposed strict quotas on the number of overseas students who were to be allowed to come. It was another blow when the fees for overseas students were raised 18 months ago. It may well be that we cried wolf too loudly in the beginning and forecast a much more severe fall-off in overseas student numbers this academic year than occurred. Equally, the Secretary of State and the Minister were too sanguine in believing that the fall-off would be relatively minor. Not surprisingly, the fall-off has been delayed by a year, but it shows every sign of being severe and will make a substantial impact on the university's financing.
Indeed, the cut of 5½ per cent., which the University Grants Committee has imposed upon us, would be increased by about £300,000 a year, to about 8½ per cent., if the number of overseas students were to decrease in the way thought likely. On several occasions the Minister has said that if the fall-off is severe he will reconsider the matter, both in its own right—since we do not wish our universities to become too insular—and in the effect of reductions on university finances. I hope that he will do so as soon as the acceptances for the next academic year have been confirmed by students in situ.
During the Easter Recess I pleaded the case for Singapore and Malaysia to continue to send students to us. I found that there was a passionate wish to do so but a fear that economic factors would compel those countries to send their students to America instead.
For a long time I was the only hon. Member who was a sociologist and I may still be the only one. Therefore, I cannot be said to be anti-sociology. However, as Baroness Seear said in the other place on 24 June, we went overboard on the social sciences in the 1960s. The


University Grants Committee evidently feels that the time has come to redress the balance of student numbers in favour of the sciences and business studies and, in so doing, to improve the staff-student ratio and the opportunity for highly qualified research in the social science faculties. Those faculties are being tightened up. We particularly need better statistics in sociology. It never ceases to amaze me that, unlike our transatlantic competitors. we have appeared for generations to believe that good business men, like Topsy, "just growed". Now, rather late in the day, we are realising that business skills must be learnt. What is more important, they must actively be co-ordinated in the life of industry around us.
At Lancaster we are fortunate in that our university coordinates its efforts closely with local industry in what is called "Enterprise Lancaster". This has been of considerable help in attracting science-based industry to our area. I am glad that business studies have been singled out by the University Grants Committee for expansion. Lancaster university is setting a commendable commercial example by making an estimated net profit of £120,000 in the current year by hosting conferences and so on.
At a time when many people in all walks of life are experiencing the sheer terror of actual or threatened redundancy, surely the facilities of our universities must be used to the full to enable people to broaden their experience and reorientate their lives. I am glad that Lancaster has opened its doors to local people who wish to attend its lectures. Without any increased expense, the university is giving them a chance to broaden their interests and possibly reorientate their lives by its introduction of open lectures.
That is the sort of experiment that will wither if the cuts go too deep. I beg my right hon. and learned Friend to ensure that that does not happen and that in pruning we do not kill the trees

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The winding-up speeches will start at 9.30 pm. If it is possible to limit speeches to five minutes, that will be helpful.

Mr. Ben Ford: Bradford has been singled out as one of the three universities hardest hit by the cuts. It was told—"invited" in academic terms—by the University Grants Committee that it must cut almost a quarter of its students over a period of three years from 4,360 to 3,530. That is grotesque.
Bradford university has built itself up as a centre of excellence. It has carefully balanced its courses, and that balance is about to be destroyed. The president of the National Union of Students called the Government "educational vandals". That fits. The Robbins principle has been abrogated, and this is the reward to those universities that have reduced their unit costs by 10 per cent. over 10 years. The Government are employing fools' logic. They are making savings now at the expense of the future. They are looking at the next generation and saying "Hang you, Jack. I'm all right. I've been to university".
Bradford has had a reduction in its grant of 32 per cent. In 1980–81 its income from all sources was £20 million. The cuts from now to 1983–84 will be £6·4 million and the

grant will be reduced from £14·45 million now to £9·64 million. That will lead to probable redundancies of 160 teaching staff and 320 to 350 non-teaching staff.
Mathematical sciences are being phased out. Why? The days of using matches went out with the 14th Earl. These days, mathematics are at the core of innovation and design in a technological society. What is the university to do about the offers that have already been made this year? Who will pay the redundancy pay for teachers who have contracts that give them 12 months' notice or payment in lieu? Next year there is to be a £2½ million cut at Bradford. If the cuts are enforced as suggested by the UGC, Bradford will go £500,000 into debt, because it has only £2 million in reserve. What my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) said becomes a possibility—that Bradford university may go bankrupt.
Worst of all, the research base is threatened and a cancer research unit being planned and built—assisted by the Bradford lord mayor's war on cancer fund—will probably have to close. There will be no medical or pharmacological skills to support it because those courses will have to close.
Britain will lose prestige and orders by the decline in the number of overseas students in Bradford university. I have personal experience of this because I used to work for an advanced electronics company that trained overseas students, and time and again those students went back home and later ordered equipment from that company. The same applies elsewhere, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) said.
The UGC is not a statutory body. It was set up by Treasury minute some years ago. It consists of 20 persons who have been educated in eight universities. I am not attacking either the UGC or those persons. I am just trying to put matters in perspective. Ten of those persons were educated at "Oxbridge". It is obviously unrepresentative. It includes only one person with first-hand experience of a new technological university.
It is time that a statutory body was formed, with public accountability and including students and trade union representation. Alternatively, the UGC could be abolished altogether. University authorities have said to me that if they have to negotiate cuts, they would prefer to negotiate directly with the Minister.
Finally, looking at the Government's policies over the years and following the events of recent weeks, many of us have a sense of impending doom. People are living in desperation from one day to the next. The Conservative Government are trying to change in three years social and economic structures that have taken three decades to construct. They seem to be moving steadily and inevitably towards a catharsis.
One of three things must happen. The Government must change their policies; there will have to be a revolt in the ranks of Tory Members, resulting in the demise of the Prime Minister; social unrest will increase to a pitch amounting to the destabilisation of society.
The Tories must change course soon. They are providing fertile ground for Left-wing revolutionary elements and Right-wing Fascists to do their dirty work. The people of Britain demand responsible, capable and constructive government. If the Conservatives cannot offer that, they should go and make way for those who will.

Dr. Keith Hampson (Ripon): I want to make two brief pleas to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. However, I want, first, to correct the inference in the remarks of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir. H. Wilson) about the Conservative attitude to the Open University. Although the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right in saying that the planning of the Open University took place under his Administration, it actually began under the Administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). It was my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister who was responsible for going ahead with the Open University. Lord Perry, the vice—chancellor of the Open University, even commended to the senate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for an honorary degree for the work that she did in ensuring that the university was launched.
My main point on the university front is that for many years, and far too long, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, there was an additive policy in the universities. Growth assumed that one added on to what one had. Institutions and those of us who taught in them by and large added on things as they took our fancy, and a whole range of departments—drama, Russian, Chinese and so on—appeared in all our universities, and history and the humanities appeared in the technical universities. There was no case for doing that, and there should have been a more selective expansion.
Therefore, I welcome the present selective approach to the way in which we develop the system. However, I agree that it is vital that the Government should make clear to the whole of higher education what the strategy is to be. The universities and polytechnics clearly believe that what happens is at the whim of the Treasury; that it amounts to ad hoch-ery due to the need to make cuts. It is vital to say that we have an overall view of where development should occur, that this is where the money will be steered and that institutions will then be left to develop their strengths—Bradford and all of them have strengths—and to concentrate on those strengths rather than to spread themselves across the whole of university courses.
It is within that selective approach that I make the plea that we must ensure that mechanisms exist to safeguard the part—time and mature students and the sandwich provision. These are the things that are most related to the vocational needs of the country. The Government always give a broad steer to the UGC. That is how Imperial college was founded. The Government of the day asked the UGC to ensure that an institution of such excellence and such specialism was created. That is what is needed now.

Mr. Harry Greenway: rose—

Dr. Hampson: I fear that I do not have time to give way. I have promised to be brief.
It must be wrong that half of our higher education provision is left to the whim of individual local authorities and that a major part of the national provision, which is meant, according to Crosland, to be the most socially responsible part of the system, in its expansion and its cutbacks, is under the control of individual local authorities and not under national guidance. It must be right that we have a national body to determine how that sector is developed. It must be right that this national body, within the cash limits available to it, gives a more direct steer than is possible in the universities for part-time

work, sandwich work and the crucial technician level courses, the sub-degree level courses that no other part of the higher education system provides.
It must be right to move, as I believe my right hon. and learned Friend wishes, towards establishing a national body and that the institutions are dealt with directly by such a national body. We must cut away the bureaucracy of the RSG, the indirect funding of institutions, the red tape and committee work, and the interference and the petty controls that some local authorities foist on their polytechnics. They should be dealt with directly as institutions, as happens with universities.
Incentive should be given to bodies that, as a collective group of institutions, raise £7 million by selling their educational wares in the world to do the things that they are good at doing. What often happens now is that local authorities quibble and fight to get their hands on the money that institutions raise by selling courses and expertise.
I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to press ahead with the establishment of a national body to enable the polytechnics to be effective partners in the higher education system and to achieve the rationalisation that is indispensable if we are to make the best use of resources.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House. I hope that the Front Benches, which between them occupied an hour at the beginning of the debate, will co-operate by making brief winding-up speeches. That will be only fair to the rest of the House. I have a long list of hon. Members wishing to speak, some of whom, in any case, will not have the chance to do so.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Last week's announcement by the Secretary of State and the circular letter from the UGC amount to the most savage blow struck against higher education probably by any Government in history. The effects of the cuts are devastating on the whole of higher education, but I wish to mention particularly Stirling university in my constituency—the youngest university in Britain, established in 1967, where the number of home students now amounts to 2,739. The UGC proposes a reduction in home students of 27 per cent., which would take the home students' roll to just over the 2,000 mark by 1984, and a reduction in the recurrent grant of 23 per cent. over the same period.
I ask the Minister, and also the UGC, what possible justification exists for singling out Stirling university for such a savage blow. The only philosophy behind the distribution of the cuts seems to be that the smaller one is and the younger one is, the harder the Government, through the UGC, will hit one. I lay the blame primarily at the Government's door. The volume of cuts in education expenditure is the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Nevertheless, the UGC does not come out of the process with clean hands. The Government are directly responsible for the volume of cuts, but the distribution of those cuts is the responsibility of the UGC, and that Oxbridge-oriented group have become the lackeys of a Government who are hell-bent on destroying our education system. The members of the UGC are simply trying to protect a privileged minority within that system.
The UGC's circular letter referred to a reduction of about 5 per cent. in student numbers and of 11 to 15 per cent. in recurrent grant in the period up to 1983–84. But the figures for Stirling are a 27 per cent. reduction in student numbers and a 23 per cent. reduction in recurrent grant.
The circular also refers to the desirability of increases in some types of science courses, but those courses are being cut at Stirling because the university has been told to reduce the number of science places by up to 300.
The Government pride themselves on an educational philosophy which is supposed to be based on freedom of choice. But applications to Stirling university in the current year have increased by more than 30 per cent. compared with a slight national decrease. Even on the Government's criterion of freedom of choice, I see no reason for discriminating against Stirling university.
As for the economics of the argument, I am reliably informed that Stirling university has the lowest student unit cost of all Scottish universities. As regards the employment prospects of students, the percentage gaining permanent employment within one year of graduation from Stirling is well above the national average. No matter what criterion one picks, there seems to be no justification for the savage cuts that the Government and the UGC are attempting to impose on Stirling university.
The university is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, employers in my constituency, with more than 1,100 employees. 'Within the Central region of Scotland unemployment is getting worse because the Government are virtually destroying the industrial base of the area. More than 14,000 people are already unemployed in the region.
The Government are determined to go ahead with the closure of the nearby Callendar Park college of education, but I warn them that there will be massive opposition if they attempt to do to Stirling university what they have done to Callendar Park. I assure them that there will be widespread opposition, not just from me but from academics, teachers, students, trade unions representing academic and ancillary staff, the local trades councils and the whole community.
I assure the Government that if they think that they can further mutilate the educational base of my constituency and the Central region they will have a fight on their hands. We are faced with an unprecedented act of educational vandalism, committed by a discredited Government. That is why we must fight their proposals all the way.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I do not share the views of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). Sheffield university has fared slightly better than some others. It is situated mainly in my constituency and over 30 or 40 years I have seen it become part of the community and an arm of industry in the city.
More recently, I have had the privilege of serving on the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, which has discussed these matters with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. The report "The Funding and Organisation of Courses in Higher Education" has already had one reply from my right hon. and learned Friend. We expect another in due course. The Select Committee made many recommendations. It

referred to pluralism rather than the binary system, wanting to see universities, colleges and polytechnics come together and be looked at as a whole.
I support the Government's amendment. Universities and other higher education institutions must play their part in making a contribution to the economy along with many other institutions, including industry. Private sector industry in particular has had to streamline consistently, not only in the last two years but in the last 10 to 15 years. The streamlining has moved to the public sector. The Secretary of State for Education and Science discussed that with the Select Committee in evidence on 17 December. The Select Committee was aware of the nature of the challenge facing the University Grants Committee and of the problems for education then.
I return to the Sheffield scene. The relationship between town and gown has always presented a problem. Sheffield has benefited in the quality of life from its association with the university over the past 30 years. Sheffield university has departments of metallurgy, fuel technology and glass technology. Over the years the British Iron and Steel Research Association worked hand in hand with the university.
Industrialists at managerial and technical levels have worked with the university. Not only do departments such as these need funds from the Science and Engineering Research Council—and I shall not comment on dual funding—but there is a relationship with industry through contract research and endowments to chairs in the university.
Today, leaders from Sheffield's industry have, once again, spoken to the Secretary of State for Industry about the cut in profitability and in the numbers in employment. The same leaders, many of whom have provided services as pro-vice-chancellors, treasurers and members of the university finance committee— I was a member of the council for many years—realise that cuts have to he made and, if public expenditure and, in consequence, taxation are to be reduced, expect the universities to do the same. It is important that the professors and lecturers in Sheffield realise this situation.
ereLast year the Select Committee went to New York State. There, because of the likelihood of cuts in the number of people going to university, cuts on the campus had to be made with flexibility. It was an education to see how the problem of contraction was dealt with and faced in New York State. Flexibility is vital. A student per capita grant system means that if there are no students there are no grants. Those in charge of the campus with reduced funds had to face cuts in the colleges.
It has been put to me in this country that finance committees of universities—the treasurer, vice-chancellor and team—need time for change. The plea that I have received is that time should be given to bring about the change. I hope that time will be given to universities as too drastic change will cause confusion.
The Select Committee examined tenure. Many young professors and lecturers see senior men past their time taking positions which they should give to younger men. That matter was raised by the Select Committee and the Secretary of State has replied. Those in industry who live alongside universities have had to face redundancies. They ask why universities should be exempt from what goes on in industry.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the Front Bench speakers for their co-operation. The winding—up speeches will not begin until 9.40 pm, which means that, with luck, it should be possible for three more Members to take part in the debate.

Mr. Frank Allaun: It is the mainly technological universities most worthy of support that have suffered the worst cuts: Salford, Bradford, Stirling, Keele and Hull.
I want to tell the House of three of the remarkable achievements of Salford, the worst hit of all. It has invented and produced a swivel walker, which enables children and adults disabled from the waist down to walk. It operates by their moving their shoulders from side to side. This morning I received a letter from a Salford mother who says:
The Swivel Walker has brought a new dimension into the lives of severely handicapped children.
The university has also built six experimental houses that can be heated to 70 degrees throughout the year at a cost of £1 a week. This has proved a tremendous success after a year's habitation.
Thirdly, the university has invented and produced small motor cars for the disabled—cars which also carry their wheelchairs—at a fraction of the normal commercial cost.
All these spectacular developments come from a university that is to suffer the most vicious cut of all. The blow will be six times as serious as the average of cuts for all colleges and universities—cuts which I also oppose. There will be a 30 per cent. reduction in the number of students at Salford, and a 44 per cent. reduction in grant, unless we stop it. How nonsensical and ruinous can the Government get?
The cutbacks at Salford are so devastating that doubts were expressed to me by a deputation that came to Parliament yesterday about whether the university would survive. The cuts may be the first step towards closure of the university, which is the city's pride. I shall press within the Labour Party for it to include in its election manifesto a pledge to reverse the cuts.
These blows have been inflicted on a class basis. Universities with a high percentage of working-class students are to suffer most, while Oxford, Cambridge and some others get off relatively freely.
Sitting on the University Grants Committee are the representatives of the posh universities, appointed by the Secretary of State. Not one of the six worst hit colleges is represented on the UGC's council. These unrepresented universities are the chief victims—another instance of anti-working class bias.
The Government have decided to act first and consider the educational, economic and social consequences later. After slashing the total grant, they are hiding behind the UGC's skirts. When we protest to the Government they say—I have in my pocket a written reply that I received today—"It is nothing to do with us; it is the UGC". When we go to the UGC, it says "Go to the Secretary of State". It is a Catch 22 situation.
The Opposition's task is to make the Government rescind the cuts. Apart from the Ministry of Defence, the UGC is the supreme example of non-accountability for the expenditure of public money. That must end.
The UGC representatives have not once visited Salford in the past three years. Its engineering department has not been visited by them in the past 10 years.
Yesterday hon. Members from the North-West received a large deputation from the Association of University Teachers. The union has a £½ million fund to fight redundancies. Teaching staff, unless guilty of misconduct, are appointed until they are 65. They will bring long and exceedingly expensive court cases to obtain, first, redundancy pay and, secondly, breach of contract damages. That will cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the short run far more than the Treasury will save by the cuts.
Salford university is the second biggest employer in the city, a city already stricken with serious unemployment. As a result of the cuts, 575 jobs will be destroyed. Somebody knows the figures, even if the Secretary of State does not. One-third of those jobs are academic and two-thirds are porters, cleaners, technicians and other non-teaching staff. What about the 1,200 student places that are being destroyed—1,200 in one university? It means that the 18-year-olds leaving school with advanced level certificates will have even less chance of a job. Yet, up to now, Salford has had a record of being one of the first universities in the country for finding employment for its graduates. The Government have put it top of the list for the axe.
For six years Dr. John Horlock, a distinguished engineer, has been the outstanding vice-chancellor of Salford. He recently left to become vice-chancellor of the Open University. His place has been taken by Dr. John Ashworth, currently the chief scientist on the Central Policy Review Staff at the Cabinet Office. He is a scientist of distinction. How must he feel at this moment?

Mr. Barry Henderson: Reference has been made to the most severe cuts on record. I was asked about the total amount of finance provided through the UGC for universities when I attended a recent meeting of some dozens of university teachers at St. Andrews. I took the trouble to find out what was the funding, through the UGC, during the past 10 years in both actual and real terms. Those who have been in the House longer than I will recall that the largest single cut in university finance was of £200 million in real terms in one year. That was in 1977, the period of the Lib-Lab pact when Shirley Williams was Secretary of State for Education and Science. The largest funding that has ever been given through the UGC was when my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister was the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
The major difference between this relatively modest cut and that enormous cut in 1977, and the major difference between the present proposals and what happened then, is that these proposals go hand in hand with a rational change in the system. That is right. There is much to be proud of in our university system. It has already been said from both sides of the House, including by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), that there was scope for rationalisation and for pruning finance.
The universities account for only 45 of the 400 institutions of higher education. Several hundreds of students were admitted to our universities last year whose


total educational qualifications were two grade "E" A-levels. That suggests that there is a qualitative problem. For academic reasons—never mind financial reasons—the exercise that is being undertakeen is long overdue. Those concerned with the exercise were right to be selective. I hope that the House and those concerned with universities will remember that even in the universities and departments within universities that have been frowned on by the UGC there are some excellent university teachers. In the universities that have come off lightly there are teachers who are not as perfect. It would be wrong automatically to equate the quality of work that the UGC wants to see with a particular quality in a university teacher and a particular institution. That would be grossly unfair.
I am concerned about the time scale over which the changes will take place. The first year target in the attempt to reach what is desired for 1983–84 is, put at its mildest, extremely difficult to achieve given that the discussions with the UGC will not be completed until half-way through the 1981 academic year.
Secondly, I suspect that redundancy, so far as it may be involved in this exercise, has been ducked to a large extent. Much more attention must be given to the problems that will arise if the targets are to be achieved over a period.
The UGC has had an extremely difficult task. I question whether it is equipped to carry through this sort of operation continually. It has given no policy guidance on divinity and theology in Scotland. I represent especially St. Andrews, the oldest university in Scotland. I question whether the principles which the UGC has enunciated have been taken as carefully into account as they should have been.
The exercise of initiating a rolling programme to ascertain the likely finances of universities some years ahead is much desired and should be expanded. I hope that it will be continued.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I wish to focus the attention of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in this otherwise dismal debate, on a ray of hope. I can put the right hon. and learned Gentleman in touch with about £13·2 million that he could redistribute to the universities of Aston and Salford and other places of excellence that will be the subject of cuts. I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman this opportunity because I believe that the University Grants Committee has behaved appallingly.
As the Secretary of State knows, there is a plan for putting the St. Bartholomew's hospital medical school and the London hospital medical school on one site at Charterhouse. That exercise would cost £1·8 million. I understand that the right and learned Gentleman has recently authorised the UGC to spend £15 million on putting these schools on to another site in another part of London. There is no rationale or reason for doing so. Even the University of London says that the only merit in making the change and spending £15 million lies in the UGC making the grant for the money to be spent.
I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to call upon the chairman of the UGC to stop this move. It would be far better to distribute the £13·2 million to the universities that will do so much for our country rather than spending it on putting two pre-clinical schools on to another site. He should adhere to the plan to site them at Charterhouse. All

the facilities that are required are at Charterhouse. The running costs will be the same wherever they are. If he decides to adhere to the Charterhouse plan, he will be popular with the House and with those outside.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: It is clear from the debate that the Government's higher education policy can best be described as a policy of cut and come again. It is a policy that would apply nicely if the Secretary of State were running an ox roast at a village barbecue. It does not apply when British education is being barbecued. We are dealing with a precious national investment. However, to the cuts of last year and the process of atrophy which is now enveloping the polytechnic sector of the public sector of higher education have been added the ill-considered penalties of the overseas student policy, the March White Paper and now the UGC cuts.
Throughout the torrent of criticism that has been levelled at them in the debate, the Under-Secretary and his right hon. and learned Friend have sat on the Government Front Bench, the Gradgrind and Bounderby of the DES. No doubt they will tell us that all is still for the beset in the best of all possible worlds. What do they have to say about the implicit criticism in the UGC's letter? The committee has come in for some criticism during the debate, and in some respects deservedly so.
The UGC said recently that there was no solution to the problems it faced because
the rate at which resources have been removed from the university system necessarily leads to disorder and diseconomy whatever path of change is followed and … because reductions in resources are being imposed at a time when demand for university education is still rising.
Those words seem to imply that those who uttered them should have come back to the Government of the day, if they are to be more than the fuglemen of that Government. They should say what their view is of the destructive nature of the cuts on the university system. There are those who might say that if it held that view, the UGC would have been better placed to resign. Those people have been placed in an impossible position as the executors of a Government policy which left the universities and the whole university sector in such financial straits.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), the Secretary of State challenged the alleged exaggerations in my hon. Friend's speech. I want to hear from the Under-Secretary whether the figures put forward by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals are effectively to be challenged. Is the reduction in home and European Community student numbers 7½ per cent. and not 5 per cent. because this year's numbers are higher than those which the UGC has used as a baseline? Is there to be a one-in-seven reduction in opportunity for young people able and wishing to go on to university? Those are the figures put not by special interests on either side of the House but by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.
There are a number of questions which I should like to put to the Under-Secretary in the short time open to me. I hope that he will reply to them in kind. The first point was raised by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Does the Under-Secretary now accept that the Robbins principle is dead? Are the Government prepared to have the courage of their malign convictions to come to the Dispatch Box and tell us that the Robbins principle is dead?
I was alarmed by what the Secretary of State said in commending to the House the report which came out today from the Public Accounts Committee. One of the recommendations from that Committee is that we should have cash limits for student grants. If we have that, we turn our backs on the mandatory student grant. If we turn our backs on the mandatory student grant, we attack the other side of the Robbins principle and we leave the university students of tomorrow unable to get that access to higher education which has been there since the Robbins committee first sat.
My second point has been raised by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Why are there no figures for a 1980–81 baseline which would give us a more accurate view of the real cut in resources and tell us whether those resources are to be cut by more than 7 per cent., whether student numbers are to be cut by 20,000 as the Association of University Teachers and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals suggest, or whether the Government are sticking to the figure of 13,000 which was put out earlier?
The Government's timing is seriously out of kilter with the increases in the population of student age. The Under-Secretary, in one of his animadversions to the Young Conservatives, said that we must remember that the peak number of 18-year-olds will be reached by 1982 and then there will be a dramatic drop over the following 10 years. Does he stand by that? My information is that the number of students will rise until 1983. It will peak in that year because the age cohort will be 941,000. Far from there being a dramatic drop, the real numbers of people coming into the system and applying for places in higher education will be higher throughout the 1980s than they were for the 1970s. Those are the facts and that is what we should be dealing with tonight, even if we do not take into account the new needs for re-education, continuing education and the expanding of sandwich courses and part-time education and so on, which the industrial as well as the social needs of our society impel us to consider.
The Secretary of State said that the Government have not removed 20,000 places from the system for all time. Of course they have not. No Government can do anything for all time. What they have done is remove for all time the opportunities from those students who come into the age cohorts. That is the point and that is the indictment against the Government in the debate. If one is a young person, properly qualified in terms of the Robbins criteria, seeking access to higher education in 1981, 1982 and 1983, one's chances of getting it are significantly worsened by what the Government have allowed to happen.
I do not believe that a Secretary of State for Education and Science who cared deeply and passionately about education, and who was not prepared to see education become a function of public expenditure cuts, as it has been by this Government, could stand happily by while that was happening.
Can the Under-Secretary of State tell us whether the DES now has any figures whatever on the number of students in the coming year who will be thwarted in their attempt to get into higher education? If we are correct in our view that the places are now to be reduced, and if universities such as Aston are correct in saying that they will have to withdraw conditional acceptances already

given to students, what is the figure? The Government should come clean and tell us what kind of research they have done.
I also want to know something about the position of the academic staff. How many redundancies will there be? The AUT calculates that there will be at least 3,000 redundancies in academic staff. As has already been said, this is happening equally, if not more so, as a result of the constraints of public expenditure that have affected the polytechnics.
The onslaughts that the Under-Secretary has made on the system of tenure, the false comparisons that he has drawn with Harvard and Yale and the suggestion that our staff-pupil ratio is far better in Britain than in those universities do not stand up against the kind of public expenditure requirement of the worst and the most wasteful kind that will have to be made if the Government now have to buy out tenure and make redundant 3,000 or 4,000 academic staff. That is without taking into account the countless other people in the universities who are employed by them or who are dependent on them at one remove and who will also lose their jobs. We should not forget the laboratory technicians, the librarians and the canteen ladies when we look at these reductions. They are just as important as those who are now facing the possibility of redundancy but who can perhaps claim up to £100,000 in compensation.
I should like to know how the University Grants Committee went about its task. In what way is there accountability for what it has done? The league table singled out the technological universities—not the remote universities referred to by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) which have never travelled in the realms of doubt and have never had to question their role. The universities that have been singled out for the most punitive cuts are those that are constantly self-questioning their role, that have to interlock with the society in which they live, that have to interlock with industry, that have to apply sandwich courses, that are frequently placed in the rotting city centres and that are not the kind of remote cathedral universities that seem to have done better out of the UGC's study.
What criteria has the UGC used in considering which universities to cut? Was it A-levels? Was it the research budget? Stirling had a research budget of 9·1 per cent. It had funding from 172 external bodies. Was Stirling penalised because it did not have sufficient research from outside? I think that it is the view of the research councils that if we hammer away at university science in the way that has been done in this exercise we shall damage qualitatively the whole of research into science in this country today.
What did the UGC do when it visited the various universities? Aston university has had to lose 100 out of 500 staff. The letter from the UGC told it to discontinue philosophy. It does not have any courses in philosophy. The UGC told it to discontinue architecture. It has already stopped architecture. The UGC told it to discontinue Russian. It is down to one student in Russian.

Mr. Greenway: Does the hon. Gentleman want Aston to retain a whole faculty for one student?

Mr. Whitehead: What kind of cuts can be made in these non-existent departments when the university is told to lose 1,000 students?
Aston university has a bio-deterioration research laboratory. It has one of the only two research and development units into fish farming in the country. It is leading in research into water pollution and other areas of this kind. Yet universities of this kind are being told to diminish their work in faculties such as engineering, which is being moved to universities such as Kent. That is entirely wrong. It shows the nature of the discrimination being practised against the technological universities.
Finally, it seems to me that the whole exercise mounted by the Government has, by its atavism, destroyed many institutions that may not be able to survive on their present numbers. It is no good saying that one chooses courses, not universities. A crisis of confidence in the universities will follow the financial crisis that has now taken place.
There is only one achievement left that the Government have not so far accomplished. That is to be the first Government in Western Europe to close a university. That is the only thing left for them to do. If they had any grace at all, the Ministers involved would resign.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): Until my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) pointed out that the cuts in one year under the Labour Government amounted to more than we now propose over a period of years, one might have believed some of the Opposition statements. I remind the Opposition that in 1969 Labour Ministers set out—and this was reported in The Times—13 methods of saving money far more drastic than those that we have proposed. They included the introduction of a loan system, the idea that people should be tied to jobs when they finished their courses, and all kinds of propositions of that kind. Many present Labour Members were Members of the House, and, indeed, Ministers, at that time.
This is not a new form of rationalisation. It has been with us for a long time. The difference is that we have done something about it. The Labour Government put out a document, but, with the exception of one point, the universities have done nothing about it. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said recently at Kent university:
It was a pity that these proposals"—
that is, the Labour Government's proposals—
were not treated more seriously at the time. But Universities then thought that they only had to shout loud enough that they were centres of excellence and everyone would bow. Universities walked so tall that they sometimes forgot about the ground.
It is important to realise that what we are now doing people have been talking about on and off for years. At least we are achieving something along the way.
We are achieving rationalisation. [Interruption.] It may worry the Opposition, but they will have to listen. This is a policy of rationalisation, not of mere cuts but of careful pruning. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) for recognising that we are using pruning shears, not nail scissors. The fact that we had a good day today with the roses growing well again shows that the pruning was worth-while.
This matter has come to a head for two reasons. First, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, the Government were elected to cut Government expenditure. [Interruption.] It is not a pack of lies. Labour Members should not judge these things on the basis of their

own manifestos. We were elected to cut Government expenditure. At present, we are limited by the money available, and that has acted as a catalyst.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) is quite right in saying that in 1982–83 there will be a peak in the number of 18-year-olds. For the next two years they will be in the universities. The number will then fall by 30 per cent. in 10 years. Unlike the Labour Government, we do not wait until there is an excess of teachers before doing anything about the situation arid then create unemployment among teachers. We have planning. The Opposition are supposed to believe in central planning, but as soon as they see any they object w it. I should have thought that they would welcome our planning.
Let us be clear about what has been done. There has been a switch from the arts to technology and science. Hon. Members may shake their heads. I shall give them the figures. In medicine, there will be an increase of 5 per cent. in three years, in dentistry an increase of 3 per cent.—so the Opposition had better keep their mouths shut for a while—in engineering and technology 2 per cent., in mathematics 3 per cent., in physical sciences 7 per cent. and in business studies 3 per cent. Those figures illustrate a switch to the sciences, technology, engineering and business studies which I am sure that hon. Members on both sides would welcome.
My hon. Friends the Members for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) and Ripon (Dr. Hampson) said that there was no point in having half-courses in each university. Every university cannot offer every course to every student. That is the economics of Passchendaele. The way to rationalise the teaching of German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese or Spanish is to concentrate economic units in various universities. Such subjects should be moved to a university where they can be economic and taught alongside general studies.
That is a proper form of rationalisation. Minority subjects should be concentrated in a number of universities so that they can be taught in economic units to the benefit of both staff and students. We are maintaining the amount of money going to the research councils—£343 million in real terms.

Mr. Kinnock: indicated dissent

Dr. Boyson: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has been misled. In 1983–84, the number of students in universities will be slightly more than the number in 1977–78, the last year in which the Labour Government were in power. From what has been said, people would think that the locusts had descended and that no universities were left. We should also remember that in addition we have polytechnics and colleges of further and higher education. In fact, apart from universities, there are 396 institutions where degrees can be obtained, and many of them have vacancies.
This is not a betrayal of the Robbins principle. It is a question of ensuring that that principle is fulfilled. However, it does not mean that every pupil will be able to go to whichever university he wants, to read what he wants, in which year he wants, or to go on whichever train he wants.

Mr. Canavan: What about freedom of choice?

Dr. Boyson: There can be no ultimate freedom of choice. I am told that regularly enough about schools.
I appreciate the genuine concern of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) about overseas students. This year, 7 per cent. more students from overseas are in our universities than was allowed for under the Labour Government's quota system. One would think that they had all gone away in little boats or that they had never arrived here.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is a learned man and is obviously concerned about this matter. He will therefore be interested to learn that there are now 13 per cent. more students in higher education than that envisaged in the quota. Had the universities admitted overseas students without charging a fee, they would have been in even greater financial difficulty.
Britain's real need is not necessarily more graduates. Employers do not say that they want more graduates, although at times they may say that they want better graduates. They want people to work on the workbench so that they can put research into practice.
A few weeks ago, I visited the Royal Society and I learnt that scientists must go abroad to have their research projects manufactured because they cannot be produced here. British research is as good as it has ever been, but we require the ability to make the goods arising from research quickly.
This year, we are spending more money in real terms on non-advanced education for 16 to 19-year-olds than ever before. I believe that to be a basic requirement for employment and other reasons.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) and Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) referred to the need for sensible rationalisation of higher education courses.
The University Grants Committee has been attacked. However, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, we do not know of a university vice-chancellor who would want to replace that body with direct Government interference. An article in last week's edition of The Times Higher Education Supplement states:
Already several things are clear. The UGC is not trying to act like the Prussian High Command dictating every movement and controlling every movement and controlling every timetable … but its broad strategy deserves support.
We wish to ensure that we shall have the university system that we want in the 1990s instead of being stuck—as Opposition Members want us to be—with the university system of the 1960s.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes, 230, Noes, 272.

Division No. 258]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Beith, A. J.


Adams, Allen
Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)


Allaun, Frank
Bidwell, Sydney


Alton, David
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Anderson, Donald
Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)


Atkinson, U. (H'gey,)
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Buchan, Norman


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)





Campbell, Ian
Huckfield, Les


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cant, R. B.
Janner, Hon Greville


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Coleman, Donald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Cook, Robin F.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Craigen, J. M.
Kerr, Russell


Crowther, J. S.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cryer, Bob
Kinnock, Neil


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lambie, David


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lamond, James


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Leadbitter, Ted


Dalyell, Tam
Leighton, Ronald


Davidson, Arthur
Lestor, Miss Joan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Litherland, Robert


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Dewar, Donald
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Dixon, Donald
McCartney, Hugh


Dobson, Frank
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dormand, Jack
McElhone, Frank


Douglas, Dick
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dubs, Alfred
McKelvey, William


Dunn, James A.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dunnett, Jack
McMahon, Andrew


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
McNally, Thomas


Eastham, Ken
McWilliam, John


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Magee, Bryan


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Marks, Kenneth


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


English, Michael
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)


Evans, John (Newton)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Ewing, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Field, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Flannery, Martin
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Ford, Ben
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Forrester, John
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foulkes, George
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Newens, Stanley


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Ogden, Eric


George, Bruce
O'Halloran, Michael


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Neill, Martin


Ginsburg, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Golding, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Gourlay, Harry
Palmer, Arthur


Graham, Ted
Park, George


Grant, John (Islington C)
Parker, John


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Pavitt, Laurie


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Pendry, Tom


Hardy, Peter
Penhaligon, David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Prescott, John


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Heffer, Eric S.
Race, Reg


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Radice, Giles


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Richardson, Jo


Home Robertson, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Homewood, William
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Horam, John
Robertson, George


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Howells, Geraint
Rooker, J. W.






Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Ryman, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Sever, John
Tilley, John


Sheerman, Barry
Tinn, James


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Torney, Tom


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Short, Mrs Renée
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Weetch, Ken


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Welsh, Michael


Silverman, Julius
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Skinner, Dennis
Whitehead, Phillip


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Snape, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Soley, Clive
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Stallard, A. W.
Winnick, David


Steel, Rt Hon David
Woolmer, Kenneth


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Wright, Sheila


Strang, Gavin
Young, David (Bolton E)


Straw, Jack



Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Corrie, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Costain, Sir Albert


Alexander, Richard
Cranborne, Viscount


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Critchley, Julian


Ancram, Michael
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Aspinwall, Jack
Dickens, Geoffrey


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Dover, Denshore


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Durant, Tony


Banks, Robert
Dykes, Hugh


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Eggar, Tim


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Elliott, Sir William


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Eyre, Reginald


Best, Keith
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bevan, David Gilroy
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Farr, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Fell, Anthony


Blackburn, John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Blaker, Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Body, Richard
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Bowden, Andrew
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fookes, Miss Janet


Braine, Sir Bernard
Forman, Nigel


Bright, Graham
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brinton, Tim
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Brittan, Leon
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fry, Peter


Brotherton, Michael
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Budgen, Nick
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bulmer, Esmond
Goodhart, Philip


Burden, Sir Frederick
Goodhew, Victor


Butcher, John
Good lad, Alastair


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Gorst, John


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Gray, Hamish


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Greenway, Harry


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Grieve, Percy


Churchill, W. S.
Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Grist, Ian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hamilton, Hon A.


Cockeram, Eric
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Colvin, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cormack, Patrick
Hannam, John





Haselhurst, Alan
Needham, Richard


Hastings, Stephen
Neubert, Michael


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Newton, Tony


Hawksley, Warren
Onslow, Cranley


Hayhoe, Barney
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Heddle, John
Osborn, John


Henderson, Barry
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Hicks, Robert
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Parris, Matthew


Hill, James
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Pawsey, James


Hooson, Tom
Percival, Sir Ian


Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Pollock, Alexander


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Porter, Barry


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


lrving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jessel, Toby
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Raison, Timothy


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Tim


Kimball, Marcus
Rhodes James, Robert


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rifkind, Malcolm


Knox, David
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lang, lan
Rossi, Hugh


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rost, Peter


Latham, Michael
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott, Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lloyd, lan (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Richard


Loveridge, John
Shersby, Michael


Luce, Richard
Silvester, Fred


Lyell, Nicholas
Sims, Roger


McCrindle, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Macfarlane, Neil
Speller, Tony


MacGregor, John
Spence, John


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Sproat, Iain


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Squire, Robin


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Stainton, Keith


McQuarrie, Albert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Madel, David
Stanley, John


Major, John
Steen, Anthony


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Stokes, John


Mates, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mather, Carol
Tapsell, Peter


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Tebbit, Norman


Mawby, Ray
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thompson, Donald


Mayhew, Patrick
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Mellor, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Trippier, David


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Trotter, Neville


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
van Straubenzee, Sir William


Miscampbell, Norman
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Moate, Roger
Waddington, David


Monro, Hector
Wakeham, John


Montgomery, Fergus
Waldegrave, Hon William


Moore, John
Walters, Dennis


Morgan, Geraint
Ward, John


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wells, Bowen


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Wheeler, John


Murphy, Christopher
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Myles, David
Whitney, Raymond


Neale, Gerrard
Wickenden, Keith






Wiggin, Jerry
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wilkinson, John



Williams, D. (Montgomery)
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. John Cope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, recognising the need for restraint in public expenditure, notes that the Government continues to make substantial resources available for higher education and welcomes the recommendations of the University Grants Committee for the rationalisation of the university system to ensure a balanced provision.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, consideration of Lords Amendments to the Forestry Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Forestry Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

DISPOSAL OF LAND

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 8, after "(2)" insert "Subject to subsection (2A) below,"

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I have accepted the amendments to Lords amendment No. 2 in the names of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) and others. Therefore, in discussing Lords amendment No. 1, we shall discuss with it Lords amendment No. 2 and the two amendments to that Lords amendment.

Mr. Wiggin: We have been over a good deal of the ground in this Bill many times, in this House and in the other place. Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 fulfil a Government undertaking on Report in another place and give statutory effect to assurances that were given at earlier stages of the Bill. The Government recognise that the Forest of Dean is unique and that its land should not be sold except in the circumstances for which the amendment provides. The amendment will, therefore, maintain the status quo in the forest as regards disposals. This means that surplus cottages, small areas of the Waste in the forest and the like will be sold as in the past, but there will be no power to sell significant areas of forest land.
The House will appreciate that the Forest of Dean was part of an old Royal forest. I have made clear on a number of occasions that there was never any intention by the Forestry Commission to sell this land. Thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), who represents the constituency, and the very substantial public feeling that wishes this amendment to be written into the legislation, we have agreed to do so. I will not comment in any great detail at this stage on the amendments of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). The hon. Gentleman will no doubt wish to make his own speech. I do not wish to preempt what he wishes to say. Since, however, he has already made clear his views on a number of occasions, I think I can guess to some extent what he has in mind.
I repeat the assurance that is already public knowledge in the context of the letter that Ministers have sent to the chairman of the Forestry Commission about disposals. The hon. Gentleman knows that the points that he tries to make in his amendments have already been the subject of considerable assurances by the Government.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move, as an amendment to Lords amendment No. 2, after "Dean" insert:
or the Dean Forest and Wye Valley Forest Park or Snowdonia Forest Park or the Border Forest Park or Galloway Forest Park or the Queen Elizabeth Forest Park or Argyll Forest Park or Glen More Forest Park or the New Forest".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to move the


amendment. It is being taken with Lords amendment No. 1. The hon. Gentleman can speak to it, but he will move it formally when the time comes.

Mr. Canavan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not often that I welcome anything from the House of Lords, but I welcome this concession, minor though it is. Hon. Members who spent some time on the Standing Committee dealing with the Bill will know the difficulty we experienced in trying to wring even a minor concession from the Government. We got none. Now, when the Bill comes back from the House of Lords, we find this minor concession relating to the Forest of Dean. I am sure, of course, that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), in whose constituency the Forest of Dean lies, will claim that this is a major concession. So it is, I suppose, for his constituents. It is, perhaps, a major victory for them. I wish to ask why the concession cannot be extended. My two amendments propose an extension in two ways.
The first amendment standing in my name and the names of my hon. Friends would benefit even more the people living in the area of the Forest of Dean. If my second amendment were accepted, it would benefit many other people in different parts of the United Kingdom. Under the first Lords amendment, as it stands, the Minister may still sell off any land within the Forest of Dean if that land is not needed for forestry or for connected purposes.
I maintain that the purpose of the Forestry Commission is not solely related to forestry. There may be other purposes which, although not perhaps as important in the eyes of the Forestry Commission, are nevertheless equally important and possibly more important than forestry in the eyes of hundreds of thousands of people who want to get access to the countryside and use it for leisure and recreation purposes.
The Forestry Commission does not seem to contradict that view. I have a booklet published by the Forestry Commission which says:
The Commission has a continuing policy of developing its forests for recreation, providing facilities for informal recreation and the enjoyment of quiet pursuits. This development conforms with the Commission's statutory powers and obligations, within the financial resources available and subject to the primary objective of timber production.
In other words, although the prime purpose of the Commission is timber production, it has other purposes which, throughout the years, have provided valuable services to the wider community.
If my first amendment were approved, purposes such as recreation would have to be considered by the Minister if he were contemplating the sale of land within the Forest of Dean or elsewhere. I understand that much of the pressure brought to bear on the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West came from those who were as concerned about leisure and recreation as about afforestation. It would be reasonable for the Government to accept my amendment to include in statute form the provision that the Minister would have to take into consideration other aspects in addition to forestry.
My second amendment refers to an extension of the concession given to the Forest of Dean to the other forest parks and one other area which, although not officially designated a forest park, is also an area of outstanding scenic beauty.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Forest of Dean is unique. It is not, and I hope to be able to show

that the forest park that lies partly in my constituency is equally deserving of the special consideration that the Government are giving to their supporters and others in the Forest of Dean.
There are seven forest parks in the United Kingdom, including five in Scotland. I hope that even Scottish Tories will support my amendment. The Lords amendment: refers only to the Forest of Dean, but the forest park in that area—the Dean Forest and Wye Valley forest park—which must be of great concern to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, includes, as its name implies, both the Dean forest and the Wye Valley.
I have also included in my amendment the New Forest, which, although not officially termed a forest park, consists of 105 square miles of land that offers similar amenities to those found in many forest parks.
Five of the official forest parks are in Scotland and one in Wales. If I were as parochial as the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, I would have provided for only the Queen Elizabeth forest park, which lies partly in my constituency. However, I included the Snowdonia forest park in Wales and the Border forest park, which is partly in England and partly in the constituency of the Leader of the Liberal Party. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will support my amendment, though he is not in the Chamber.
The Glen More forest park is in the constituency of another Liberal Member, the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), and the Galloway forest park is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang), who is not here for the debate. The hon. Gentleman is a typical Scottish Tory who always obeys the Whips and never bothers about the interests of his constituents. I should have thought that he would have been here to use not only his voice but his vote in support of me in trying to stop the Tory Government from being given the power to sell off Galloway forest park in his constituency.
The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) is also a Tory Member who spends most of his time defending the hatchet job that the Tory Government are doing on the Scottish education service. He is not even here to defend his constituents against the hatchet job that the Government might do to the Argyll forest park.

Mr. Delwyn Williams (Montgomery): The only hatchet job that I can remember my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) doing was that against Opposition Members in a previous debate in the House.

Mr. Canavan: The hon. Member for Argyll was not even here for the previous debate. Certainly he was not here when I was speaking on higher education. If he had contributed, in his own inimitable way, he would have been defending everything that the Government do in hatcheting the education system, because he is always jumping up to defend his pal the Minister responsible for education and industry in the Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher). He would be more appropriately named the "Minister for miseducation and de-industrialisation."
I turn to the forest park which lies partly in my constituency and partly in the constituency of Kinross and West Perthshire, which is represented by the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who is also conspicuous by his silence and absence. Perhaps he does not know that part of a forest park is in his constituency, because I understand that he is rarely there. I refer to the Queen Elizabeth forest park.
The Minister tried to justify the special case of the Forest of Dean by saying that it was former Crown property. I do not know whether the land around the Queen Elizabeth forest park was once Crown property, but it certainly bears the Queen's name. I wonder what the Queen would think of the Government if they started selling off to local Tory landlords forest lands which bear her name.
Let us examine some of the landlords. The Montrose estates belong to the family of the Duke of Montrose. We all know of his standards of loyalty to the Crown—he went off to support the Smith regime in Rhodesia. I believe that he is now back in the House of Lords and that he managed to take the Oath of Allegiance. I fail to understand that. His family's estates are in that area.
Not very far away is the family estate belonging to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is also conspicuous by his absence; and yet he is responsible for forestry in Scotland. He will bear the responsibility for any forestry sales in Scotland.
The Queen Elizabeth forest park is in an area of outstanding natural beauty. Hon. Members are, perhaps, inclined to exaggerate the natural environment of their own constituencies. Hon. Members who have had the pleasure of visiting that part of Scotland will agree that it is an area of outstanding natural beauty compared not only with the rest of the United Kingdom but with the rest of the world. People visit it from all over the world and admire it.
The area stretches from Loch Lomond-side and takes in Ben Lomond and the forests of Rowardennan, Buchanan and Loch Ard across to the Trossachs. Unlike most other forest parks, it is within reasonable proximity to the densely populated central belt of Scotland. As the crow flies, it is less than 20 miles from the centre of Glasgow. Depending on the traffic, it can be less than half an hour's drive from the centre of Glasgow. The park is like a lung to the industrialised central belt and still densely populated part of Scotland. It is also an area steeped in history, immortalised in the literature of Sir Walter Scott in his poem "The Lady of the Lake" and in his historical novel "Rob Roy", which is about Rob Roy MacGregor. It was a famous hunting ground of Rob Roy and his family and supporters.
10.30 pm
Nowadays, the forest park offers a range of activities that it would be difficult to equal anywhere in the United Kingdom: forest walks, hill walks, serious mountaineering—Ben lomond, for example, is over 3,000 feet high—water sports, angling, aquatic studies, and the biological study of the flora and fauna. A very wide range of educational and recreational opportunities is available to young and old alike.
Can the Forest of Dean beat that? If the Forest of Dean can be given a special concession, why should not the Queen Elizabeth forest park and the other forest parks be given a similar concession? The Queen Elizabeth forest park is in every way comparable to the Forest of Dean and in some ways surpasses it. I await with interest hearing from the hon. Members for Galloway and for Argyll and all those other hon. Members with forest parks in their constituencies about the equal merits of places within their own patches.
It would be an unforgivable act of desecration if any Minister sold off such an important part of our natural heritage. I therefore ask the Minister to consider extending the minor concession that was given in the House of Lords to other forest parks, many of which are in constituencies represented by Tory Members. I am sure that many Tory supporters will be angry with this Tory Government if the forest parks in Scotland are treated in an inferior way compared with the forest land in the Forest of Dean.
It is an absolute disgrace that it was a Scottish Office Minister who dealt with the amendment in the House of Lords. That Minister, Lord Mansfield, is himself a big Scottish landowner. He is prepared to give a concession to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), representing the Forest of Dean, yet he is ignoring the similar wishes of my constituents and other people in the beautiful forest lands and forest parks of Scotland.

Mr. Paul Marland: As the Member for the constituency in whose boundaries the Forest of Dean lies, I am pleased to speak in support of the Lords amendments. During the Bill's passage through this House I moved an amendment to exclude the Royal Forest of Dean from the blanket provision on sale originally provided by the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister was unable to accept the amendment, and even after a Division the forest remained prey to faceless investors, who, if they chose, could fence off the land that they bought and deny access, thereby ending the foresters' ancient tradition of grazing and access to the grounds, on the basis that they were not legally recognised.
The right of access to the Forest of Dean is vital, for the forest is becoming more and more widely recognised as a national forest park, where people come to seek rest and relaxation. As the price of petrol rises, more and more people are tending to come from the Midlands with their cars and caravans rather than continue their journey to Devon and Cornwall.
The trails and forest walks enjoyed by those visitors are not legally recognised but are permitted and established due to the understanding nature of the Forestry Commission. Because of the lack of legally recognised rights of common, of access and of forest trails and footpaths, it was vital that the forest be excluded from the Bill. I am pleased to tell the House that Lord McNair recognised our plight in another place and undertook to move his own amendment to recognise the special difficulties facing the Forest of Dean. Happily, not only the Gloucestershire peers but many others in that place saw the validity of the case and prevailed upon the Government to reconsider and to amend the Bill to its present form. I am grateful to the Ministers concerned, and especially to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who was not at all agreeable in the early stages. Getting the Government to change their mind is no easy task. I thank all those who contributed so much to the crusade, for a crusade was how we saw it. I am happy to say that it was one that transcended all political differences.
Lord McNair, who is now quite obviously the toast of the Forest of Dean and who I am glad to see in the Gallery, is the person to whom I pay especial tribute for what he has done and for leading the campaign.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I am following the hon. Gentleman's understandable remarks


of satisfaction about the Government's concession. Will he address his remarks at some stage to the difficulties of the other forest parks which have a similar case? Will he be supporting the same exception for them, especially as he was educated in Scotland at Gordonstoun and knows the country well?

Mr. Marland: The Minister has recognised the unique qualities of the Forest of Dean, to which I referred at the beginning of my speech. I said that for the lack of rights of common, rights of access and recognised footpaths, it was essential that the Forest of Dean should be recognised as a special case. I am glad that the Minister has seen fit to do that. It is worth remembering, too, the substantial contribution that has been made in the battle by the Forest of Dean district legal department and its chief executive, Mr. Leslie Packer, without whose personal determination our task would have been very different.
My constituents and I are secure in the knowledge that after the passage of the Bill the Royal Forest of Dean cannot be sold and fall prey to maurauding investors or future Governments' greed, which I suggest is far more likely. For if we had an extreme Left-wing Government who required funds to pursue and finance one of their more madcap schemes—a Government of whom, the hon. Member for Stirlingshire, West (Mr. Canavan) could be a member—there would be nothing to prevent them from selling off the forest if the Bill were in its unamended form. The forest has now been protected from future Governments' greed. I suggest that an extreme Left-wing Government of the future might see fit to sell off the forest, despite the protestations of Labour Members now.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Surely the hon. Gentleman must be labouring under a savage Left-wing Government. The present Government are proposing to sell off half a dozen forests.

Mr. Marland: If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to consider the facts, he would realise that the Forestry Commission owns £3 billion worth of assets and that the Administration are considering selling off only £10 million-worth of Forestry Commission property this year. It is absurd—

Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is right.

Mr. Marland: —that the taxpayers should be asked to underwrite the efforts of the commission, which has £3 billion worth of assets, by putting nearly £40 million into the commission every year to make ends meet. Extreme Left-wing politicians may approve of economics of that sort, but my right hon. and hon. Friends do not.

Mr. Home Robertson: Except for the Forest of Dean.

Mr. Marland: In the eyes of the foresters there was never a more convincing argument than the passage of the amendments for the preservation of the House of Lords in its present form. They have seen their ancient rights preserved by that noble institution.
There now remains only one blot on the horizon—the threat of opencast coal mining in the Forest of Dean. The county structure plan for Gloucestershire was clear in its presumption against any such operations in the Forest of Dean, but the Department of the Environment has seen fit to ignore that and to lay down conditions for the extraction of coal by opencast mining. It seems illogical that the

Government should seek on the one hand to preserve ancient traditions and develop a national park and, on the other hand, to allow opencast mining in the same area.
I should like it to be widely known that my constituents and I are 100 per cent. opposed to opencast coal mining in the Forest of Dean without local and county consent. Without that permission, we shall do all we can to prevent opencast coal mining. However, tonight is a different occasion and it is with great pleasure and some pride that I speak in support of the Lords amendments.

Mr. Home Robertson: That was about the most contemptibly selfish speech that I have ever heard delivered in the House. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) has made it clear that he is happy to see any part of Forestry Commission ground sold off anywhere else in the country as long as it is not in his constituency. If that is the sort of performance which he will treat us to in the House and which he will give in his constituency, I am sure that John Watkinson will be back in the House before long—and a good thing it will be, too.

Mr. Marland: You obviously were not listening to what I was saying, because I sought to explain to you the unique character of the Forest of Dean. and it is in recognition of that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was listening carefully.

Mr. Marland: The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) was not listening carefully enough. It is the unique character of the Forest of Dean that the Minister has recognised. I am speaking in support of that.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Forest of Dean may be unique, but I am sure that it is nowhere near as unique as the hon. Member. The Minister, in his introductory remarks, said that we debated clause 1 of the Bill over and over. Indeed we have. How true that is. He and his colleagues have made it clear over and again that they are totally hostile to the successful public enterprise of the Forestry Commission. I suspect that they are hostile to it precisely because it is such a successful public enterprise and that that success is distasteful to doctrinaire Tories such as the Minister.
I want to spend only one or two minutes supporting my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). He was right to table his amendments to the Lords amendments, because if we cannot save the forestry enterprise of the Forestry Commission, which we must accept is now in grave danger as a result of the provisions of the Bill, we should at least endeavour, by supporting the amendments, to save the amenity, environmental and heritage aspects of the work of the Forestry Commission.
I am sure that it is right that we should seek to protect the Forest of Dean from the depredations of the speculators, about whom the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West spoke so eloquently. I congratulate the hon. Member on his achievement in wringing this concession out of the driest of dry Ministers in this monetarist Government. I wonder whether that concession might have more to do with the fact that the hon. Member holds a marginal Conservative seat than with any genuine forestry or environmental consideration. It is cynical to single out one forest in the entire United Kingdom for protection. The hon. Member said that it was vital, but he


never explained why any of the other forest parks described by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire are any less vital.
I conclude by repeating my warm support for my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire in his effort to protect all the forest parks in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gavin Strang: The amendment moved by the Minister is welcome, but it is a small concession. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) has argued, even if the Government were to concede his amendment and extend the exemption to the other forest parks, the total exclusion would still fall a long way short of the sort of changes which many people and employees in the Forestry Commission would have liked to see in the Bill. My hon. Friend has made many powerful and eloquent speeches in Committee and on the Floor of the House against this draconian and doctrinaire piece of legislation, and no one could suggest that his arguments in relation to the forest parks, about which he is particularly knowledgeable, are other than convincing to any open-minded and reasonable Member.
10.45 pm
But the main issue is the lack of any attempt by the Government, during the passage of this legislation, to allay the fears and concern of many people—not all of them direct supporters of the commission—as to the intentions of the Government. The fears and concern were well illustrated by some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), who talked about money being pumped into the Forestry Commission. The Forestry Commission is the forest authority. It administers the large panoply of grants to the private sector. Is it supposed to do that for nothing? The Forestry Commission carries out research on behalf of the whole industry. It is very valuable and important resarch, and tribute is paid to the commission by the whole of the private sector. Indeed, it has a high international reputation.
Only yesterday I had the pleasure of visiting the Forestry Commission's stand at the Royal Agricultural Show at Stoneleigh. It is a splendid example of what a public enterprise is able to put forward on such occasions. The Forestry Commission is a good example of public investment, public ownership and public enterprise, and only an extreme, doctrinaire Government such as the present one would contemplate a measure of this nature.
How can the Government expect to sustain support for an overall forestry policy with a policy and an approach based on the Bill? When the Labour Government were in office we used to have representations for a bipartisan forestry policy. My reaction was that the people who made the representations were looking for something that would be even more favourable to the private sector. There was a fairly broad bipartisan approach to forestry for many years and through many Governments.
The Labour Government made massive concessions to the private sector. After the application of capital transfer tax, there were considerable representations and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said on Second Reading, the real concession to private forestry comes through the tax concession on earned income where people are able to switch to schedule

D. [Interruption.] There was a fall in the level of private planting, I agree, but it was largely a reflection of the general commercial downturn in the wood sector. My belief is that our concessions did not have a major impact on the increase in private planting, although there was an increase. What was more important to the level of private planting was the general outlook for sales of wood and wood products at that time.
I hope that people will no longer make representations to the Labour Party about a bipartisan policy on forestry, because all that is finished. When this legislation goes on to the statute book it will destroy for a very long time any proposition that the two main parties can go forward together with some broad general approach to forestry. A heavy price will be paid as a result of the Bill. That is why many of the private owners and many of the private foresters have made representations—unsuccessfully—to the Government to pull back from the massive cutbacks in the Forestry Commission which can be seen in the Bill. It will, of course, depend on the application of this legislation. It will depend on the extent to which the Treasury and the Government as a whole are determined to pursue a policy of asset stripping and sell off some of the great national assets created by people in the Forestry Commission as a consequence of public investment over the years.
It is a sad day for forestry when the Government are not motivated by the future development of the commission or the best interests of forestry but see the Forestry Commission purely as a national asset to be plundered. We shall reverse that policy as soon as we have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Wiggin: By leave of the House, perhaps I may deal with some of the points that have been raised.
It is a matter of regret, certainly for his information, that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) was not a member of the Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill, nor, if I recall correctly, was he able to contribute to our debates on Report. Otherwise, he would not have sought to repeat continually the same mythology that he produced on Second Reading when the Bill was first debated in the House.
The Forestry Commission has built up at the expense of the public purse over some 60 years a substantial asset, the ownership of which is relatively unimportant. In protecting the taxpayers' interests, I can see no possible disadvantage in the transfer of some part of those vast assets, probably amounting to some £1½ billion, from the public purse to the private investor. The forests will not get up and disappear, vanish or evaporate. They will stay here as a national asset. It is entirely a matter of political dogma that the hon. Gentleman makes the accusations that he has made when we are seeking to reduce public expenditure. There is no other motive or philosophy behind the sale of any State assets, not just those of the Forestry Commission.

Mr. Esmond Bulmer: My hon. Friend referred to a private investor. Is it not more probable that it would be a corporate investor, probably a pension fund and perhaps even a pension fund representing a trade union?

Mr. Wiggin: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point. It is well known that some pension funds are already seeking to invest in forestry and, due to the lack of


opportunities in the United Kingdom, are investing British pension funds in America and elsewhere. I believe that that is a great pity.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East well knows, the Forestry Commission's operations as a forestry authority are in no way affected by the Bill. The subvention from the Treasury for that part of its activities will continue precisely as before. He claims that some mysterious malaise allowed the rate of planting in the year after the introduction of capital transfer tax to drop so dramatically that the Government of which he was a member were forced to set up an internal committee in order subsequently to increase private planting grants and concessions because they were worried that the effect of capital transfer tax would have been to eliminate private forestry altogether. To try to draw a veil over that kind of episode seens to me to be to try to turn the truth on its head.
Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that much private planting is the result of income tax concessions. That is why the Government have confirmed that those concessions will continue, in order to increase and continue forestry as a whole in this nation, whether in the public sector or the private sector.
I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman make aggravating remarks about whether forestry should be an all-party matter. We are writing into the Bill, and on a future amendment we shall be discussing, a commitment that in considering how funds raised by sales should be used we are committed to the expansion of the British forestry industry. That is the issue on which the two sides of the House should be at one, not the precise administrative operations of the Forestry Commission.
I was asked why the Forest of Dean should be exempted. The fact that persuaded the Government to make this special provision was that there is an absence of common rights and special privileges in this ancient Royal forest of a kind that exist in the New Forest, another Royal forest. It is because the existing rights in the Forest of Dean—which, incidentally, has been the subject of much former legislation over many years—are enjoyed only on Crown sufferance, and could be extinguished by a new owner, that we felt it right and proper to include the Forest of Dean in the Bill. No such consideration applies to forest parks, because that is a name given by the Forestry Commission to certain of its forests with special scenic or other attractions. They do not have the ancient statutory backing that the Forest of Dean has.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) talked about predecessors. On occasions, I wish we could have his predecessor here. He mentioned the success of the Forestry Commission. I am not certain how he would measure that, but it strikes me that, as a substantial annual cost to the Treasury, the enterprise side of the Forestry Commission should start to realise some of its assets and to pay back to the long-suffering taxpayer some part of the investment that has been going on over 60 years.
I am grateful for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland). We listened carefully to his representations. While he was graceful enough to acknowledge that Lord McNair moved the amendments, it was as a result of many meetings with my hon. Friend and others from his constituency that forestry Ministers were persuaded that his view should prevail.
I am unable to accept the amendments of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). He knows very well why. We have debated the general principle with him on at least three occasions during the passage of the Bill. The concept of the forest park is quite different from the ancient Royal forest, and I am therefore unable to accept the amendments.

Mr. Canavan: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] I am sorry, but there was at least one dissentient voice, and therefore the hon. Gentleman does not have the leave of the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page I, line 9, at end insert—
(2A) Subsection (2) above shall not apply in relation to land acquired under this section which is in the Forest of Dean; but the Minister may sell any such land if in his opinion it is not needed, or ought not to be used, for the purpose of afforestation or any purpose connected with forestry, and may exchange any such land for other land more suitable for either of the said purposes and may pay or receive money for equality of exchange.

Read a Second time.

Amendment to the Lords amendment proposed, after 'Dean', insert
'or the Dean Forest and Wye Valley Forest Park or Snowdonia Forest Park or the Border Forest Park or Galloway Forest Park or the Queen Elizabeth Forest Park or Argyll Forest Park or Glen More Forest Park or the New Forest'.—[Mr. Canavan.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 26, Noes 110.

Division No. 259]
[11 pm.


AYES


Alton, David
Howells, Geraint


Beith, A. J.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Leighton, Ronald


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cryer, Bob
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dalyell, Tam
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davidson, Arthur
Palmer, Arthur


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Penhaligon, David


Dixon, Donald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Radice, Giles


Evans, John (Newton)
Spearing, Nigel


Ewing, Harry



Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Tellers for the Ayes:


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mr. Dennis Canavan and


George, Bruce
Mr. John Home Robertson.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Ancram, Michael
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th.E)
Clegg, Sir Walter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert
Cope, John


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Cranborne, Viscount


Best, Keith
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dover, Denshore


Biggs-Davison, John
Dykes, Hugh


Blackburn, John
Eggar, Tim


Brinton, Tim
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brotherton, Michael
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Goodhart, Philip


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Gower, Sir Raymond


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Hampson, Dr Keith






Hannam, John
Osborn, John


Hawksley, Warren
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Porter, Barry


Hooson, Tom
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Tim


Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rossi, Hugh


Knight, Mrs Jill
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Silvester, Fred


Loveridge, John
Sims, Roger


Luce, Richard
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lyell, Nicholas
Speller, Tony


MacGregor, John
Sproat, Iain


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Stainton, Keith


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Major, John
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Marland, Paul
Stradling Thomas, J.


Marlow, Tony
Tebbit, Norman


Mather, Carol
Thompson, Donald


Mawby, Ray
Thorne, Neil (llford South)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mayhew, Patrick
Waddington, David


Mellor, David
Wakeham, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ward, John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Wells, Bowen


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wheeler, John


Moate, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Wilkinson, John


Murphy, Christopher
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Myles, David
Wolfson, Mark


Neale, Gerrard



Needham, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Neubert, Michael
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Newton, Tony
Mr. Alastair Goodlad.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 agreed to.

Antigua (Termination of Association)

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): I beg to move,
That the draft Antigua Termination of Association Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.
I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister of State—the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—who has been handling this order, for his not being present this evening. He has gone to New York for urgent discussions about Belize. He explained that he would be doing that during the course of the Belize legislation last week.
This order, terminating the status of association between the United Kingdom and Antigua, will be made under section 10(2) of the West Indies Act 1967. Any order made under this section is required to be laid in draft before Parliament and to be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
It is proposed that the order should come into effect on 1 November 1981. Thereupon Antigua will become a fully independent sovereign State. I am happy to inform the House that the Antiguan Government have announced their intention to apply for membership of the Commonwealth.
Antigua and Barbuda—as the independent State is to be known—is the fifth of the Associated States in the Eastern Caribbean to move to full independence, following Grenada, in 1974, Dominica, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent.
In view of the importance of this occasion, both to us and to the people of Antigua and Barbuda, I should like briefly to comment on the history.
Christopher Columbus discovered and named Antigua during his second West Indies voyage in 1493. Although Spain in the sixteenth century and France early in the seventeenth century attempted to create settlements there, it fell to the British to do so successfully in 1632. The economy of Sir Thomas Warner's settlement at that time was based first on tobacco and then, by the end of the seventeenth century, on sugar. Apart from a short period of French occupation, Antigua remained in British hands and was ceded to Britain by the Treaty of Breda in 1667. From 1725 to 1854 English Harbour, Antigua, Britain's strongest fortress in the Caribbean at the time, was the location of the Royal naval dockyard for the British West Indies. Horatio Nelson himself spent some time based in Antigua. The territory has thus played an important role in upholding Royal naval traditions in the area. Britain therefore has a historic and prolonged connection with Antigua and Barbuda.
The West Indies Act 1967 created the concept of associated statehood. This enabled certain small territories in the Eastern Caribbean, which were not then ready to move to full independence, to be given full internal self-government. The United Kingdom retained responsibility only for defence and external affairs, although certain of the latter responsibilities were also delegated to the Associated States' Governments. As I have already indicated, there has been a steady movement on the part of these States, over the past seven years, towards full independence.
The West Indies Act 1967 made provisions for the termination by one of two main methods. Under section


10(1) of the Act, the State's legislature can pass a law for the purpose, provided that two-thirds of its elected members approve and provided also that, thereafter, two-thirds of the votes in a national referendum support the Bill. Under section 10(2) of the Act, the British Government can terminate the status of association by Order of Her Majesty in Council at the request of the State. This is the method employed by all the Associated States which have so far moved to full independence and it is the method chosen by the Antiguan Government now. It is a straightforward and practical measure.
The British Government's policy on the application of section 10(2) of the West Indies Act is the same as that followed by the previous Government. Provided that two particular criteria are met, we are prepared to move the necessary order. These criteria are, firstly, that it is demonstrated to our satisfaction that independence is the wish of the majority of the people in the State, and, secondly, that the independence constitution properly protects the fundamental rights and freedoms of those people.
Although the Antigua Labour Party Government first indicated to the British Government in 1978 that they wished to move forward to independence, they had not, in the previous general election in 1976, been elected with a mandate for independence. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, the Minister of State, visited Antigua in August 1979 and reminded the Antiguan Government that if they had changed their minds about independence they must demonstrate to us that this was what the people wanted. They must also set about drafting an independence constitution. The Antiguan Government had already set up an independence committee to consider all aspects of independency with a sub-committee charged with the preparation of a draft constitution. The more fundamental issue of determining the people's wishes for the State's future was settled by the general election which took place in April 1980. At this election, the ALP won 13 of the State's 17 seats to the Opposition Progressive Labour Movement's three. The remaining seat in the House of Representatives went to the independent member for Barbuda. I shall have more to say about Barbuda. The manifestos put out by the ALP, the PLM and the unsuccessful Antigua Caribbean Liberation Movement all included a commitment to independence.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I take a few moments to explain the background. This is an important occasion for the House and the people of Antigua and Barbuda. A debate on a draft constitution which the Antigua Government had then proposed opened in the Antiguan House of Representatives on 21 July 1980. The draft constitution before the House took account of views expressed to the independence committee and its constitutional sub-committee. In the light of the debate, the draft was further amended by a committee of both Government and Opposition members and subsequently published and widely circulated throughout the State.
On 12 August 1980, the Antiguan Parliament approved a resolution requesting the convening of a constitutional conference to consider Antigua's status of association with the United Kingdom being terminated under section 10(2) of the West Indies Act. My hon. Friend the Minister of State duly invited Government and Opposition representatives as well as the independent member for Barbuda and, exceptionally, the chairman of the Barbuda Council to London, and the Antigua constitutional conference took

place from 4 to 16 December 1980. A report of that conference, at Lancaster House, is contained in Cmnd. 8142.
The Antiguan Government's published draft constitution provided the working document for the conference. Antigua's associated statehood constitution, drawn up in 1967 and on which the new draft was based, was designed, like those of all the Associated States, to be readily adaptable to the needs of an independent State. The British Government are satisfied that the revised draft constitution which emerged from the comprehensive Lancaster House discussions, chaired by my hon. Friend, will provide the independent State of Antigua and Barbuda with a framework for stable democratic government affording proper protection for fundamental human rights and freedoms. This constitution was debated in the Antigua Parliament in April and May 1981 and was approved with 13 votes for and none against but with the PLM and Barbuda members not present. A copy of the draft constitution is available in the Library of the House.
Aid to Antigua will continue for a number of years after independence and we are considering a suitable aid package. This will be discussed with the Antiguan Government once this order is approved. We hope and expect that aid flows to Antigua from other sources will increase as a result of independence.
I should like to say a few words about Barbuda. Members of the House will have noted from the report of the Antiguan constitutional conference that a great deal of time and attention was given there to the issue of Barbuda. I should explain that Barbuda, although an integral part of the colony of Antigua from 1860, is separated from the rest of the State by 25 miles of Caribbean Sea. Because of this, the people of the island have come to consider in recent years that this is a special position which should be appropriately recognised.
Since Antigua and Barbuda became an Associated State in 1967, the British Government have retained no constitutional power of intervention in, or responsibility for, the internal affairs of the State, including the local government of Barbuda. Responding to Barbudan wishes for a greater devolution of local responsibility, in 1976 the Antigua Government introduced the Barbuda Local Government Act under which the Barbuda Council was established. The council was given a substantial measure of administrative and financial responsibility, including wide-ranging powers to make byelaws for the island.
The Barbudans, however, expressed discontent, in subsequent years, with the working of those arrangements and with what they regarded as the inadequate economic and social development of the island. There is no doubt that, despite the devolution of administrative powers to the council, the relationship with the central Government was not satisfactory. Although the 62 square mile island has a population of only 1,200, with only about 400 of those being adults, when the Antigua Government began in 1978 to take steps in the direction of independence many Barbudans began to talk, albeit unrealistically, in terms of secession from Antigua.
With the Antigua Government's agreement, the British Government made various efforts to help bring about an improvement in Barbudan-Antiguan relations. Dissatisfaction nevertheless continued. The British Government accordingly decided, again with the Antigua Government's agreement, to invite a Barbudan delegation to put their case to the constitutional conference last


December. In the event, as the conference report shows, nearly half the plenary sessions and a number of informal meetings were devoted to consideration of Barbudan grievances. The Barbuda delegation, I am glad to say, took the constructive approach of agreeing to participate in discussions which were to lead to the future independent State of Antigua and Barbuda. Although not all their demands, which were considerable, were met, they achieved some very substantial advantages for their island.
Despite that, the Barbuda delegation remained dissatisfied with the conference outcome and declined to sign the report of the proceedings. The Antigua Government, however, this year set about implementing the various proposals they had made at Lancaster House for devolving greater responsibility to the Barbuda Council. In April and May the Antigua Parliament approved additions and revisions to the 1976 Local Government Act which had the effect of devolving exclusive administrative powers to the council in a number of areas, including agriculture, medical services and public utilities.
At the Antigua Government's request, a British financial expert had been sent to the State in March; All his recommendations on how the financial arrangements between the central Government and the council might best accommodate the latter's newly devolved responsibilities were accepted by the Antigua Government and were reflected in the revised Act. Among other measures also agreed by the Antigua Government were a commitment to a minimum annual revenue of 300,000 Eastern Caribbean dollars for the council from stamps bearing Barbuda's name, and the establishment of two Barbudan ports of entry.
The Antigua Government have made every effort to enter into a constructive dialogue with the council over outstanding problems and remain ready for discussions at any time. They have reminded the council that these matters are entirely internal to the State of Antigua and Barbuda and that only those two parties can devise a lasting solution. It is the British Government's hope that the Barbudans will now respond positively.
Barbuda's special position has also been recognised, and its social and economic future has been safeguarded, by the entrenchment in the independence constitution of the special measures which have been introduced. We are satisfied that the Antigua Government have fulfilled their commitments towards the Barbudan people, who have achieved for themselves a unique degree of devolution of authority to conduct the affairs of their own community within the unitary State.
The Government have carefully considered various Barbudan requests for separation from the associated State of Antigua before Antigua becomes independent but are satisfied that separation would not be justified. Under the West Indies Act 1967, it could be effected only with the request and consent of the State Government, which is firmly opposed to separation, and the British Government would not think it right, in all the circumstances, to introduce in Parliament a Bill for a new Act to effect separation.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What happened with Anguilla? Was that the arrangement arrived at when the complication arose with Anguilla and St. Kitts?

Mr. Luce: The circumstances of Anguilla, quite apart from the size of the population and so on, are considerably different. The St. Kitts-Nevis Government agreed to the separation of Anguilla under the 1967 Act introduced by the Labour Government. We are bound by that procedure. In the case of Antigua and Barbuda there is no consent of the Government. I am happy, if I have the House's approval, to respond later to questions.
The general election of April 1980 demonstrated overwhelmingly the Antiguan people's wish for independence. A constitution has been prepared which protects the basic rights and freedoms of the people of the independent State. It is, therefore, incumbent upon us to respond now to the people's wish, and we have concluded that the status of association with the United Kingdom should be terminated. We are not, of course, relinquishing our 350-year old links with Antigua; we are merely adapting their nature to the world of 1981.
The main base for the economic development of Antigua and Barbuda today is tourism. It is encouraging that, in the tourist context, English Harbour and Nelson's memory can continue to play an important role. With independence, the State of Antigua and Barbuda will be able further to develop its co-operation with neighbouring States—notably in the form of the new Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, in the activities of which an independent Antigua and Barbuda will be able to play a full part. This will be an important contribution to the stability of the region. I know that the good wishes of the House will go to the people of Antigua and Barbuda as they approach this important stage in the State's development. We look forward to continuing our links with them within the Commonwealth.
I now seek the House's approval of the draft Order in Council terminating the status of association with Britain from 1 November 1981.

Mr. Giles Radice: We understand the reason for the Minister of State's absence. I regret it because I should have liked to ask him one or two questions. We wish him well in New York.
We warmly welcome the independence of Antigua. We fully accept the rights of the Antiguans to self-determination. We wish the island well in the difficult world in which it will exercise its sovereignty.
However, I cannot give Antiguan independence an unqualified welcome, because of the hostility of the overwhelming majority of inhabitants of the island of Barbuda to their association with Antigua. The hostility has expressed itself in a number of ways. In the April 1980 election, the member for Barbuda who campaigned on the basis of a separate future for the island was elected by a two-thirds majority. All six members of the Barbudan council are in favour of a separate Barbuda. The Barbudan delegation to the constitutional conference sought separation from the administrative control of Antigua. Half the time of the conference was devoted to Antigua.
The majority of Barbudan inhabitants have signed the Barbuda declaration which gives notice of their intention to establish a separate territory if and when Antigua


becomes independent. Nobody has any excuse for saying that he did not understand or know about the Barbudans' feelings.
We should also note that the Barbudans are a peaceful, hardworking people who believe in using constitutional methods to register their protests. Just because they are peaceful does not mean that we should not listen to what they say. On the contrary, they are all the more entitled to a fair hearing from the Government and the House.
Rightly or wrongly, the Barbudans deeply distrust the Antiguans. They believe that they will be exploited and badly governed by an independent Antigua. They believe that the Antiguan Government do not and will not reflect their interests. They believe that they will not get their fair share of public spending. They fear that the police force, which is wholly Antiguan, will be biased against the Barbudans. They fear that their land will be bought up and exploited by Antiguans.
A letter sent to the Minister of State states:
The bitter experience of our people has been hard earned in dealing with Antigua especially since 1951 and a continued but forced association can only breed long-term disruptions.
I fully accept that substantial progress was made on the issues I have outlined at the December constitutional conference under the Minister's chairmanship. In particular, as John MacDonald said in his closing speech, the two sides moved very close together on land. However, on the administration of the island, on the power to raise revenue and on the policing of Barbuda there remains a large divide. The Barbudans want sufficient powers to raise money, and in particular they want control of the Barbudan stamps to be wholly within the hands of the Barbudan people. They also want complete control over their police force. They do not want the Antiguans sending Antiguan police to Barbuda.
At the end of the constitutional conference the Minister talked of a continuing negotiation. He clearly hoped that the problem would resolve itself. Will he say what negotiations there have been since December, and with what result? What progress has been made on the outstanding issues—on the administration of the island, on the power to raise revenues, and on the policing? He mentioned the financial expert who had been to Barbuda. What were the views of the Barbudan Council on the report of that financial expert?
I suspect that insufficient progress has been made on the outstanding issues and that, as a result, Antigua is going to independence without the support of the island of Barbuda. That surely must be a sad state of affairs. Anyone who studies the issue must accept, as I do, that we do not want a plethora of micro-States in the Caribbean. However, there is the unhappy experience of Anguilla to remind us of what can happen if an island is press-ganged into an association against its will. Whatever the Minister might say, there is an analogy there. I think that the United Kingdom Government have the duty and responsibility to ensure that they have done their utmost to get Barbudan support for the independence of Antigua.
I hope that the Minister can say enough tonight to dispel the fears and suspicions of the Barbudans. It would be a tragedy for all concerned if the independence of Antigua, which we must all support, were to be undermined by the long-term hostility of the Barbudans.

Mr. Bowen Wells: This is a great occasion for both Britain and Antigua. We are moving into a new era from a period of nearly 400 years of history and relationships between Britain and this West Indian island, which has played a major role in the history both of Britain and the West Indies. I welcome this expression of desired independence for Antigua, as, I am sure, does the House. I congratulate the island and wish it well.
There are, however, major problems to confront Antigua in its new independent state. Let me give a quotation from the epilogue written by that distinguished West Indian, Sir Arthur Lewis, to the book by Sir John Mordecai on the West Indies federation. He said:
Lastly, federation is needed to preserve political freedom. A small island falls easily under the domination of a boss who, crudely or subtly, intimidates the police, the newspapers, the magistrates and private employers. The road is thus open to persecution and corruption. If the island is part of a federation the aggrieved citizen can appeal to influences outside: to the Federal courts, to the Federal police, to the Federal auditors, the Federal civil service commission, the newspapers of other islands, and so on. If the government creates disorder, or is menaced by violence beyond its control, the Federal government will step in to uphold the law.
That is the comment of a distinguished West Indian.
We are dealing now with a small island that is achieving independence. It has been preceded by several other islands that have evolved from the state of associated statehood to independence. We have to think in this context of Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Dominica. The last one will, perhaps, soon be St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla. This movement to independence has already started and cannot be stopped. It is for this reason that I welcome Antiguan independence, but only as a step in the direction of making certain that these small islands begin upon a new road to joint endeavour to preserve political freedom in those islands. The experiences of Grenada, and of Dominica in particular, are not encouraging in this respect. Grenada was the first of the independent States and I have no doubt that the Minister, in introducing the relevant Order in Council, made the same sort of remarks as my hon. Friend made tonight. It was an illegitimate independence at that time, just as this one is.
I want to make clear the methods of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in this respect and ask it to question them. In my view, the method of using article 10(2) of the West Indies Act 1967 gets round the whole idea, which was encompassed in that Act, of making certain that the independence that was moved to was desired by the nations concerned.
For Antigua to achieve independence by its own request it had to have a two-thirds majority of the legislature. It had to hold a referendum in which two-thirds voted for independence before it could request the British Government to move to independence for the nation. What we have done—we did it with Grenada—is to take the British method of severing that relationship. That method is simply, as we are doing tonight, to introduce an Order in Council to sever the relationship.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and successive Ministers have said that they wished to be convinced that the entire island was consulted and wished to move to independence and that freedoms were preserved. That was said in the case of Grenada. Independence was handed to a well-known dictator—and I use that word quite


deliberately. He can only be described as that. I refer to Mr. Gairy, who, I am afraid, was later honoured by Her Majesty the Queen and raised to Sir Eric Gairy.
After independence there followed a coup, as a result of which we now have installed in office in Grenada a dictatorship of the Left wing, of a Communist nature, which is denying freedom, which is imprisoning the people of Grenada and which is employing Cuban and Russian expertise to build airports and other facilities in the island that are not simply for the use of the people of Grenada but are to be used for the disruption and destabilisation of the entire area.
Dominica provides another example. The most terrible corruption is occurring in the republic. A former Prime Minister is rightly locked up in gaol for high treason. The island was brought to its knees, but it was saved by the present Prime Minister, Miss Eugenia Charles, insisting at the independence conference on making certain that the electoral machinery was made as far as possible independent of the elected Government.
In this country we leave it to the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Boundary Commission to make certain that our elections are conducted properly. We have been careless with the constitutions that we have given to the islands of the West Indies. I have not seen the details of the Antiguan constitution, and I understand that we are not expected to examine them. We simply have the Command Paper reporting on the constitutional conference.
I am very worried because we have not made certain that the electoral machinery is independent of the political party in control. If it is not, the boundaries will be changed, as they have been in other islands of the West Indies, within three weeks of the election. People gerrymander. This kind of thing has been permitted to go on under the slipshod constitution that has been introduced into the islands.
I beg my hon. Friend the Minister to consider this very important matter and make certain of the electoral machinery, in respect both of boundaries and the conduct of the elections. We have only to look further south to Guyana to find another constitution under which a Government have been kept in power by the manipulation of the electoral machinery.
I pass quickly over the question of Barbuda, which was ably outlined by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice).
It is a sad occasion in relation to the whole concept of associated statehood that the Anguillan precedent was made, because it denied the fundamental idea underlying associated statehood, which the New Zealanders have carried out in letter and spirit in the Cook Islands but which our Foreign and Commonwealth Office seems to have been unable to apply with equal diligence and generosity to the islands of the West Indies. The result has been that we have kept a legalistic approach to the matter of associated statehood. We have not permitted the Associated States to engage in foreign affairs and foreign relations in the way in which the Cook Islands have been able to do. The Associated States have been restricted. They have not been able to attract aid from countries other than Britain, because of their dependence on the associated statehood constitution and the way in which it has been administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Moreover, the Anguilla example showed that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was not prepared to respect the independence and statehood of the Associated States. Therefore, Anguilla was severed from St. Kitts by means of what can undoubtedly be described as going totally against the West Indies Act 1967, because it was not done with the consent of the State of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla at the time. I agree that subsequently the St. Kitts Government, accepting the inevitable after the Anguilla Act 1971, agreed to their eventual severance. That example will return to haunt the House and Antigua.
Let me finish on a positive note of hope. I hope that this Order in Council will lead to the independence of Antigua, to be followed by St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla. I hope that it will lead, when they are all independent, to their joining together, securing political freedom and ensuring that human rights are respected within their islands so that their peoples may go about their business without fear of being locked up without trial, which they cannot do in Grenada. What will happen on the other islands we know not. However, with the subversion that is taking place we can fear what might happen.
I hope that the true destiny of the West Indian nations has begun tonight. I hope that we shall see the growth of West Indian nationhood, which was stultified by the failure of the federation. I hope that we shall see the West Indians coming into their own in great pride to give what they have to the world, which is a rich heritage of intelligent and active people who have a great deal to give to the world in example and in abilities. I look forward to the flowering of the West Indian nation tonight.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On this valedictory occasion there is perhaps some appropriateness in a contribution being made by a Member representing a seat in Northern Ireland. The last stages of the dissolution of the British Empire are littered with ironies, and one of the ironies is that at these last stages there come back to haunt us, albeit in microscopic form, the great tormenting political dilemmas that have accompanied the process hitherto elsewhere on a larger scale. Here they are exemplified again tonight in what is called the State of Antigua and Barbuda.
The State of Antigua and Barbuda comprehends those two territories because the imperial Power so decided about 130 years ago. There is nothing else which joins together in holy matrimony Antigua and Barbuda. How, then, do we proceed when the moment comes for independence? One is even allowed to use a word forbidden to ourselves, the United Kingdom, in this context—"sovereignty". It is sovereignty which is to be conferred upon this former possession or Associated State. What is the departing imperial Power to do at that last moment? To deny the State which it created itself? Is it to apply the majority requirement of aspiration to independence separately or is it to apply it to the State which itself has fashioned and which alone hitherto is known?
There are certain variations in which this tormenting dilemma has presented itself. In the past century it became apparent that the island of Ireland could not successfully be governed as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The island of Ireland was only a political unity because of the association with the British Crown. It had never been a political unit at any time in its


history or pre-history. There was a part of it which did not consider that it belonged with the rest, which considered that it belonged with the rest of the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, there was available a solution which was wholly satisfactory. Perhaps characteristically, that was the solution against which the House decided. That was that the part which did not associate itself with the remainder of the island should continue to be a part of the United Kingdom, which was what its inhabitants desired. It is not so easy in the microcosmic case of Antigua and Barbuda. For as Burke observed in the first of his propositions on conciliation with the American colonies, the people of Barbuda cannot send knights and burgesses to this House.
What is to happen? We cannot treat those people as individuals as we did after the success of the American rebellion, where the individuals who refused to associate themselves with the new State were allowed to retain their status and found a new home elsewhere in the remaining dominions of the Crown. What are we to do? It is said that one cannot create a midget State and that it would be an absurdity to recognise the separate identity of Barbuda. But we are in the midst of absurdities. We are creating independence on a scale and endowing sovereignty in circumstances foreign to the natural meaning of those concepts. Why do we baulk at this final step in the process of—

Mr. Russell Johnston: rose—

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member will make a speech and the House is looking forward to it, so perhaps he will allow me to continue my poor effort for only a little longer.
Why is it that we baulk at this last stage at saying "Here is an island and its inhabitants. There are only 400 adults but we have done more absurd things before—and they have worked—than to recognise that it can sail off into the world of nations as the tiniest, most microscopic nation of them all"? It might even be admitted as a member of the Commonwealth. I am sure that there is room on the pages of the statute book for that ever lengthening list to accommodate another item. But, no, pedantically we say, unrealistically we say and on the scale of comedy tragically we say "That is it. The State is Antigua and Barbuda. So be it, and upon that we will vest the mantle of independence and sovereignty."
I believe that the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate already and who have expressed their anxieties for the future have been right and have been proved right. It is a pity that at this almost ultimate stage we could not recognise the realities, even those realities which may be almost imperceptible to the political eye. I am sorry; I think that we are making a mistake.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I agree with the final words of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I, too, think that we are making a mistake.
I would like to welcome the order, but I do not think that I can. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say, in dealing with a collection of islands, that we are doing what the people want. I have lived on an island—which is more that the Minister has—and I assure him that the sort of affection which people have for islands—[HON. MEMBERS: "We all do."] I live on a rather smaller island. The affection which people have for islands is unique, not

to be treated lightly. I do not deny that the Antiguan majority seeks independence, but, as the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) said, all evidence shows that the people of the island of Barbuda completely reject that solution. I say "completely reject" advisedly.
I find the Government's attitude towards the small groups of people round the world who still look to us, and to whom the right hon. Member for Down, South referred, very difficult to understand. It seems to be the same, whether we are talking about Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands or bits and pieces here and there: the view of the Foreign Office is that it is all a bit of a nuisance. It is difficult, awkward and untidy. I do not like that at all.
The Minister said that he hoped that the Barbudans would respond positively. That really means "I hope they agree with what we are doing, but we do not care terribly if they do not." It is as bald, bleak and straightforward as that. There are only about 1,200 to 1,500 of them altogether, and they cannot exist as an independent entity, but does that mean that we have to force them into a unity that they do not want?
I should like briefly to make eight points. First, the majority of the population of Barbuda reject the proposal. The Member of Parliament rejects it; the nine members of the Barbudan Council reject it. Surely that means something.
Second, the Antiguan Opposition, the PLM, supported the Barbudans. That fact has to be registered as well. It is not just the Barbudans themselves; the former Government of Antigua supported the Barbudan case.
Third, the 1,200 people of Barbuda supported themselves virtually unassisted throughout the last war, and have probably done so for a large part of the last 200 years. They have a village community, with fishing, agriculture and so on, and they do not want to be told what to do by the neighbouring island, 25 miles away.
Fourth, the Antiguan Government have not kept the promises they have made to the Barbudans. They have not allowed the council to exercise the powers that were given to it under the 1976 and 1981 local government ordinances. That fact should be recognised.
Fifth, the Barbudans have not been given the money that was voted to them. That fact should be registered, because it was admitted by the Antiguan Prime Minister at the Lancaster House conference. But nothing has been done about it since then. The Barbudans have had no money since 1 June 1980, and during 1980 they had only $90,000 out of the $400,000 promised for that year. If the Antiguans are keen on being reasonable and fair, they ought to do what they undertook to do.
Sixth, there is no United Kingdom interest in compelling the Barbudans to become part of Antigua. The only result will be that the Barbudans, having tried every lawful means to prevent it, may turn to other means, and people may be hurt, as happened in Anguilla.
Seventh, the Antiguans do not need Barbuda for anything. There are no resources there that they need. There is no oil, as far as we know; nothing like that. We are concerned only with the pride of the Antiguans. As the right hon. Member for Down, South said, the relationship was created artificially by the imperial Power, which said "It seems convenient to fit these two islands together." So, when they get independence, they will be one. even though they had no particular relationship before or, indeed, at any particular time.
Lastly, there is an alternative, and it is wrong for the Minister not to indicate that there is an alternative. Barbuda is in almost the same position as Anguilla in 1969, as has been said. They were parts of an Associated State. Anguilla was taken out of association by the Anguilla Act 1971, although that was opposed by the then Government of St. Kitts—Nevis. Exactly the same could be done for Barbuda. As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) said, the Anguillan story had a happy ending. The present St. Kitts—Nevis Government have accepted that the change was reasonable and they are not making any difficulties. The same should apply to Barbuda.
I have had correspondence about this for some time with the Minister of State, who, as the Under-Secretary of State has said, is now in New York. The Under-Secretary referred to the visit of a financial expert. The Minister responsible has consistently refused to send a representative from the Government to live on Barbuda for a period of weeks to get to know and understand the people. Had he done that, he would have found that their anxieties were real and their views concerted.
It has been said by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage that a small island may easily fall under a "boss" if it becomes independent—I accept that entirely—but surely not if it remains under our protectorship.
I sought to intervene when the right hon. Member for Down, South was speaking to say briefly, because there is no time to develop the argument, that France, in dealing with its small dependencies, has set us a splendid example. It has made them part of metropolitan France, given them the opportunity of representation in some way, and recognised that they wish to remain associated. If people wish to remain associated with us, I do not understand why we should turn them away.
It does not speak well of this failing imperial Power that very late at night we try to rush through an arrangement to include people who do not wish to be included. For that reason, I oppose the measure.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I am not renowned for intervening in debates of this nature, but something about the principle being put to the House deeply disturbs me as I am sure that it disturbs the hon. Members who have spoken on this matter today and, indeed, the unusually large number of hon. Members who have sat up to attend this debate.
I sense that many thousands of miles away across the world there is a very small island whose 1,500 people are perhaps wondering what is happening in Westminster tonight. It is sad that the order has come before the House at this late stage in the day's proceedings, because if all hon. Members had known—and many are not aware of what is happening—of this terrible grievance of a small people and the great injustice that we are doing, I believe that the Government would not be pushing this order through the House.
If the Government seek to press the case for the order and it gets through by default, it will be for the people of that country to know that on the night of its passage there were hon. Members who objected to the way in which it was put through the House and the inadequate way in

which is was debated. From the replies given on behalf of the Department, it is clear that the case is not understood and is inadequately appreciated by the Foreign Office.
The House should put on record its thanks to Mr. David Lowenthal and Mr. Colin Clarke for the information that they brought to the attention of some hon. Members and which they have set out to bring to the notice of many people in the United Kingdom. The information has been produced in a dispassionate way whereby one is led to see the truth. I believe that if everyone were aware of that information, everyone would object strongly.
I wish to comment on a parallel to which I believe the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was in part referring, namely, the parallel with Ireland and particularly with Ulster. As I understand it, while there may be some argument in the Labour Party at this time, it has until now been the view of successive Governments that the future of Ulster would be determined by the people of Ulster. If they were to decide that they wished to sever their connections with the rest of the United Kingdom, they would be given the opportunity to do so and would be able to seek their link with Eire. To date, they have not sought to do so, and on that basis the British Government have been able to retain their commitment to the guarantee given to the Ulster people.
It is not for me to express a view about what I think about Ulster, because we are not debating that issue now. I draw a parallel here only because the Government are party to the principle of a guarantee. But if it is good enough for Ulster to determine whether it should retain its link with the United Kingdom, surely it is good enough for these people. It is incumbent on the Minister to say why it is not good enough for the 1,500 people on that island on the other side of the world. If the hon. Gentleman says that they do not have equal rights with the people of Ulster, he undermines the worth of each of those people as individuals. As I understand it, once we have ceased our function as a colonial Power, we have always endeavoured to ensure that people had constitutional and democratic rights in whatever arrangements we left behind.
It seems that much of the information and conversation that took place during the Lancaster House discussions has never been drawn to the attention of hon. Members. Indeed, I am told that, although applications for certain documents have been made, they have not been made available to hon. Members. However, that conference was a barometer of the antagonism that exists between the people of Antigua and Barbuda.
I understand that a number of diverging views surfaced about the local government arrangements, the allocation of finance between Antigua and this small island and the organisation of law and order and policing of the island. We are told that an argument took place about the ownership and distribution of land and how it would be administered. There was also an argument on fishing rights. We in Britain know how fishing rights can become pestilent in terms of the argument that it can create between two authorities which believe that they should have access to the same fishing grounds.
Are the Government seeking to divest themselves of total responsibility, as against the part responsibility that would apply were we to retain our links with Barbuda, because they are fearful of the minute public expenditure implications of retaining that link? If that is the case, the whole argument about Barbudan independence is debased in terms of the amount of money the British Government


would wish not to spend to support the democratic rights of a small number of people. It cannot be a large sum. Perhaps the Minister will say how much money would have been involved had we retained a link in the form that the Barbudan people wished and that they expressed at the Lancaster House conference.
It would seem that St. Kitts and Anguilla set a precedent. If so, does the hon. Gentleman rule out the possibility that the same thing could happen in the case of Barbuda and Antigua? Is it possible that in a year or two we shall once again be asked, late at night, to pass another Bill, just as we accepted—although I was not a Member of Parliament at the time—the Anguilla Bill? Will we be asked to pass a new Bill that provides for the rights that both Conservative and Opposition Members have argued for? If so, the hon. Gentleman will have debased Parliament by not accepting our arguments. He will give way only when paratroopers have been sent to that small island after the people, in frustration, have turned to the route used by the people of Anguilla when they sought independence.
If, despite hon. Members' arguments, the people have to pursue that route, the hon. Gentleman will, in many ways, have debased the role of the House. He will have added weight to the arguments of those who say that people can achieve their ends not by arguing, debating or going through the democratic processes but by resorting to the processes that all hon. Members take great exception to.

Mr. Luce: I sought to make a full and extensive speech at the beginning of the debate because the Secretary of State, the Minister and I do not underestimate the importance of the order. The order is important, not only from our point of view but from the point of view of those who live in Antigua and Barbuda. As this issue is of profound importance to those who live on those two islands—about 75,000 people live in Antigua and about 1,200 people live in Barbuda—I thought it right and proper that we should take time to consider deeply the Government's proposal to terminate the association and to proceed to complete independence.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice), to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) and to other hon. Members for the fact that they have wished the people of Antigua and Barbuda well. However, some hon. Members had doubts about the basis of our proposals. I am sure that all hon. Members wish the people of Antigua and Barbuda well and would like them to exist in circumstances that meet with their consent. Therefore, it is my duty to try to answer the anxieties expressed by hon. Members.
I listened carefully to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He said that Governments had done more absurd things before. He implied that to fragment Antigua and Barbuda was absurd but that we should accept it as such and go ahead. Perhaps I have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. I do not deny that successive Governments of different persuasions have done many absurd things. However, I should not have thought that our first priority was to set out deliberately to do such things. The Government believe that what we propose is right for the people of Antigua and Barbuda. We do not approach it on the basis of the

criterion that more absurd things have been done before. That is not necessarily the sensible way in which to approach it.
There are one or two things to add to what I said in my speech and in so doing I hope that I shall answer the questions raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage and others in the debate.
When an election was held in April 1980, 98 per cent. of the popular vote was in support of the parties the manifestos of which said clearly that they were in favour of proceeding to independence on the basis of the State comprising the two islands of Antigua and Barbuda. To put into perspective what the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said—I appreciate the points that he raised and the anxieties he expressed on behalf of the people of Barbuda—although it is not a majority, about 32 per cent. in that election voted in favour of the Antigua Labour Party, the manifesto of which supported the concept of proceeding to independence on the basis of the integrity of the two islands.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Luce: Perhaps I should try to expand further to answer some of the points that the hon. Gentleman and others have made.

Mr. Russell Johnston: It is not fair for the Minister to make that point. The current position of the Antiguan Labour Party is to accept the Barbudan claim.

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman implied that every person in Barbuda was against proceeding along the basis that we are proposing. I am seeking to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that that is not entirely true. I am trying to minimise the amount of exaggeration that there has been.
I remind the House that under the West Indies Act 1967 separation of one component of a State from another can be entertained only at the consent of and with the request of the elected Government of that country. It is our duty to take that fully into account when considering this matter.
However, other hon. Gentlemen raised problems. I should stress the importance of the constitutional safeguards that have been provided for Barbuda and the extent of the devolution that the present elected Government in Antigua have provided for the Barbudans. It is on a scale that is almost unprecedented in our experience. There are two main constitutional safeguards. First, no Bill to alter section 123 of the independence constitution which relates to the Barbuda Council—which I explained fully in my earlier speech—can receive assent without approval of both Houses of Parliament and of a two-thirds majority referendum. Secondly, no Bill relating to the Barbudan local government Act, which defines the council's powers, can be regarded as being passed by the House of Representatives until it receives the consent of the Barbuda Council. Re-amendment by the Senate must similarly receive the council's consent before enactment.
We should not underestimate the extent of the devolution that has taken place. It goes much further now than the 1976 Act that I described earlier. It is on a massive scale. There is no other word that I can use to describe that.
I thought that the hon. Member for Inverness was in favour of devolution, but it goes across the board with such


things as administration of agriculture, regulation of electricity, road construction, maintenance, revenue raising, responsibility for improvement of public buildings, promotion of hotels, tourist development and a range of powers on byelaws which give an astonishing range of devolution.
I am not a great advocate of devolution in all cases, but, in the context of the debate and taking into account the important views expressed by hon. Gentlemen and my hon. Friends, we should take into account the extent of the devolution and of the constitutional safeguards that we have provided.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street asked specifically about the financial situation. I reiterate that we sent out a financial adviser at the request of the Antiguan Government and with the support of the Barbudans. He has made suggestions about financial arrangements which make sense and are designed to be as fair as possible to the Barbuda Council. I have no reason to dispute the information from the Antigua Government which indicates that expenditure per capita on Barbuda has been the same as that throughout Antigua. They have undertaken that the expenditure they propose in the future should increase, and they have indicated that it may end up by being at a higher level per capita in Barbuda than it will be in the rest of Antigua.

Mr. Radice: Does the report of the financial expert have the backing of the Barbuda Council? That was my specific question.

Mr. Luce: As I understand it, the financial proposals that are being put forward are not a source of great dispute. I am subject to correction about that. I must acknowledge that if many of the people of Barbuda would like to proceed to separation, clearly any arrangement would not be satisfactory. Broadly, however, I think that they are still anxious about some matters, including matters to do with land and the control of the police. It is only fair to say that these are some of the outstanding matters.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has been dealing with this matter, has been most diligent in trying to help, as an honest broker between these two Governments, to reconcile their anxieties and differences, because in the long term we think that this is in their interest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage was rightly concerned about instability in the Caribbean. Naturally, that also concerns the British Government. Any sign of instability is a source of concern for us. I believe that greater fragmentation of States is not in itself something that is likely to be conducive to leading to greater stability. That is not the view of just the British Government. Perhaps more importantly, it tends to be the view of the majority of the countries in the Caribbean. My hon. Friend knows the area very well. Our friends there feel very strongly about this matter. They are anxious about stability there. They feel that if there is a great degree of fragmentation, there is a greater danger of instability. In considering the order, that is a factor that we ought to take very carefully into account.

Mr. Russell Johnston: How on earth can it be said that if Barbuda—1,500 people in an agrarian community—has a separate arrangement, it could create instability in the region? It is a ridiculous argument.

Mr. Luce: If the hon. Gentleman says that it is a ridiculous argument, he is going against the views of the vast majority of the Governments of the Caribbean. Those who have been our friends, those who are members of the Commonwealth in the Caribbean, feel very strongly about this matter, and we ought to respect their views. It is very important that we take them into account in considering this problem. They should not be dismissed in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has dismissed them.
Very important points were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage about the constitution. The provisions in the constitution, which again were the subject of full discussions last December, are along the lines of other constitutions. If my hon. Friend examines the draft constitution—he may have already done so—he will see that in the kind of areas that he has mentioned, such as electoral arrangements, there are strong safeguards. That is the purpose of discussing in detail and providing in detail constitutions that are designed to make sure that the arangements, for example, for the holding of elections are as fair as possible.
I have tried in my initial speech and in answering more specifically some of the anxieties that I understand—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In response to an intervention earlier in the debate, the Minister undertook to reply to all the points that were made. I drew attention to the parallel with Ulster. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will seek to reply, as he promised.

Mr. Luce: I have tried to reply to the main points concerned with the order. I do not think that I would seek to draw a parallel with Ulster. I am concerned about the position of the present Associated State of Antigua and Barbuda and what I, my hon. Friend and my right hon. and noble friend think is right for its people and in their interests. I have tried to put across my belief that what we propose is right and is in their interests.
We, as the Government, will do our utmost to help and provide our good offices in the time between now and 1 November to assist the Government of Antigua and the Barbudan Council to see whether it is not possible for them to reconcile oustanding differences about their future. I am not without hope on this matter. The Member of Parliament has expressed the view that they are a peaceful people and that they would like to proceed in a peaceful manner. They have already been constructive. They have participated in the constitutional conference. They have looked at the details of the arrangements that might be made. Without signing the agreement, they have made a lot of progress in terms of persuading the Antiguan Government to provide all these safeguards and this devolution.
I believe strongly that this is the right way to proceed for the people of Antigua and of Barbuda. I hope that I am reflecting the view of the majority of hon. Members in wishing all those people well. I recommend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 75, Noes 7.

Division No. 260]
[12.25 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)


Ancram, Michael
Best, Keith


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Bevan, David Gilroy


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Biggs-Davison, John


Banks, Robert
Blackburn, John






Boscawen, Hon Robert
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Brinton, Tim
Murphy, Christopher


Brooke, Hon Peter
Neale, Gerrard


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Needham, Richard


Cope, John
Neubert, Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
Osbom, John


Dover, Denshore
Patten, John (Oxford)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Porter, Barry


Eggar, Tim
Proctor, K. Harvey


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Goodlad, Alastair
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Sims, Roger


Hawksley, Warren
Speller, Tony


Henderson, Barry
Sproat, Iain


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Stainton, Keith


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Stradling Thomas, J.


Le Marchant, Spencer
Tebbit, Norman


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Thompson, Donald


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Luce, Richard
Wakeham, John


Lyell, Nicholas
Ward, John


MacGregor, John
Wells, Bowen


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Wheeler, John


Major, John
Wilkinson, John


Mather, Carol
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wolfson, Mark


Mayhew, Patrick


Mellor, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
and Mr. Tony Newton.


Moate, Roger




NOES


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cryer, Bob


Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Noes:


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Penhaligon, David
Mr. Nigel Spearing.


Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Antigua Termination of Association Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.

Furniture Development Council (Dissolution)

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not yet completed its consideration of the instrument. It had a meeting on Tuesday to consider the instrument. It asked the Department for further comments in an additional memorandum. The Committee has not yet made up its mind whether to draw the special attention of the House to the instrument and is not able to do so until it receives a response to its request. Normally, the Committee, if it thought necessary, would report the instrument to the House and print the memoranda supplied by the Department.
I am surprised, therefore, that the Department intends to go ahead with the order. Since the House set up the Joint Committee to scrutinise statutory instruments and to report them to the House if necessary, it would be prudent for consideration to be deferred until the Joint Committee has completed its consideration. Almost certainly that wall be next Tuesday. We do not want to defer the matter indefinitely, but there is not much point in having such a Committee if its request is not taken into account.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): That is a matter not for the Chair but for the Minister.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had hoped that since my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is present he would be able to intervene. Is it true that the organisations representing persons employed in the industry were consulted? I do not believe that it is possible for me to get a reply to that question unless the Joint Committee has had the opportunity of asking the question and seeing the documentation from the Department. I wanted to hear from my hon. Friend the analysis that his Committee has made of this matter, but the House is entitled to know whether this information has been examined and what replies were received from the Department so that some of us who feel strongly about the matter can make our views known.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The order is properly on the Order Paper. It is not a question for me. I am sure that the Minister will have noted what has been said. He may want to refer to it, but it is a matter for debate.

Mr. Brown: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The order is properly on the Order Paper. It is a matter not for me but for debate. I call the Minister to move the motion.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That the draft Furniture Development Council (Dissolution) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 23rd June, be approved.
I am prepared to listen in the debate to points that hon. Members may wish to raise, and I shall be happy to reply to them if, by leave of the House, I am permitted to speak again.
The purpose of this order, which is being made under the authority of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947, is to make provision for the amendment and subsequent revocation of SI 1948/2774 so as to wind up and dissolve the Furniture Development Council and so that the statutory levy which is collected by the council shall cease to be payable in the furniture industry after 1982. It also provides that for 1982 the level of exemption from liability to pay the levy will be increased from a chargeable turnover of £3,000 to £200,000, thus giving early relief from payments of the levy to the smaller firms in the industry.
The House may find it helpful if I explain a little of the background to this statutory levy and the Furniture Development Council. The levy is collected by the Furniture Development Council, which came into being on 1 January 1949 and which is the only survivor of those development councils set up under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947 in the immediate post-war years. The council originally had a wide range of functions, but since 1968 its sole function in practice has been to collect the compulsory levy, the proceeds of which it passes to the Furniture Industry Research Association, known as FIRA. The rate of the levy, the maximum permitted under the existing order, is 50p per £1,000 of turnover. The levy applies only to the manufacture of furniture of a type commonly used for domestic purposes. Thus, for example, office furniture manufacturers pay the levy only when their chairs and tables are of a type commonly used in the home. Manufacturers of built-in furniture have been included within the scope of the levy since 1967.
The present proposal to discontinue the statutory levy and wind up and dissolve the Furniture Development Council follows a detailed review last year of opinion in the industry. All but five of 40 different industry research associations, so far as they were supported on a collective basis by their industries, received such funds last year on a voluntary basis. The Government therefore decided, since they were on a voluntary basis, to seek the views by ballot of the companies in those few industries where, contrary to the norm, statutory levies existed to establish whether there was a clear balance of opinion in those industries in favour of continuation of a compulsory collection.
In the case of the furniture industry, which is the only one where there exists a development council that collects the levy rather than the levy being collected by the Government, my right hon. Friend is required by the 1947 Act to consult every five years with the council and with organisations representing both sides of the industry on the question whether the council should remain in being, and, if so, whether the development council order should be amended in any respect. Although the quinquennial review was not due until this year, the views of the council and those organisations were also sought both last year and this year.
Perhaps I should make it clear at this point that the review of the statutory levy has been quite separate from the Pliatzky review of non-departmental bodies—quangos as they are commonly known—and that the Pliatzky report did not have any bearing on this exercise.
The council favoured its own continuation. Amongst the other organisations consulted there were divided

views, but a clear majority—63 per cent.—of the levy payers who voted in the ballot were against continuation of the statutory levy. Although it was the smaller and medium-sized companies that were more strongly opposed to the continuation of the statutory levy, even amongst the larger companies that voted, half were against its continuation. It is right that the views expressed by this substantial majority should be respected. That is the reason for this order.
With the ending of the collection of the levy, the Furniture Development Council will be relieved of what has been its sole function for the past 13 years. Consequently, the order also provides for its orderly winding-up and dissolution. I stress that the proposals before the House in no way reflect any criticism of the council. Over the years it has carried out its collection task with great efficiency and for the last 18 years it has been under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Roger Falk, to whom I should like to pay special tribute tonight for all the work he has done.
Nor does the order reflect on the work done by the Furniture Industry Research Association over the years for the benefit of the whole of the furniture industry. Our consultations have shown that many in the industry greatly value the work done by FIRA and we hope and expect to see FIRA continuing to draw financial support from the industry, although support given on a non-compulsory basis.
Although we favour the switch to non-compulsory funding, and this is what the industry has voted for, it would be wrong to discontinue the statutory levy so abruptly as to be damaging to the future of FIRA. We have received strong representations on this point. Indeed, one of my first tasks when I took up my office in the Department was to deal with this question. I believe that it is necessary to allow a period for adjustment to the system of non-compulsory funding of FIRA. Having heard the views of the council and FIRA on the time needed for this adjustment, I agree with them that the levy ought not to be completely abolished, nor the council dissolved, until 31 December 1982. The order provides for this.
As I said earlier, the order contains a provision to give early relief to the smaller firms in the industry by providing, with effect from 1 January 1982, that those companies whose designated turnover does not exceed £200,000 shall be exempted from levy from that date. As the Minister with special responsibilities for small firms, and as one who is very conscious of the burdens that Governments can impose on small firms, I am delighted that the council and FIRA have willingly accepted this exemption.
Although it is not intended to give free membership of FIRA to the smaller firms within the industry that will obtain early exemption from the levy, as a result of the provisions that I have just described, I understand that FIRA has arrangements in hand to enable them still to have access to FIRA's services by voluntary subscription and that the association will undertake specific projects for those firms that are prepared to pay for them. At present the statutory levy yields about £½ million annually, which represents about 40 per cent. of FIRA's total income. I understand that the raised exemption level will mean that some 700 smaller companies out of a total of about 1,700 companies presently liable for the levy will no longer be required to pay it in 1982.
I should also make it clear that in addition to the support obtained from the industry through the statutory levy the Department of Industry has supported a lot of work at FIRA by way of cost-shared contracts for specific programmes of work. In recent years this support has accounted for 17 to 20 per cent. of FIRA's income. This support is in no way linked to the existence of the statutory levy. Under present research and development policies the Department would expect to continue to support specific work at FIRA in the same way as in the past, if suitable proposals for support are put by FIRA to the Department's research and development requirements boards.
As was the case when the last development council—the Textile Development Council—was dissolved in 1972, the draft order provides for the necessary administrative arrangements to allow the orderly winding up and dissolving of the Furniture Development Council. It provides for the residual property, rights and liabilities of the council to vest in my right hon. Friend after the council's dissolution. It makes provision for the council's accounts. As the 1947 Act requires, it also makes provision for the imposition and recovery from the industry of charges to meet the council's liabilities and winding-up expenses should—unexpectedly—the council's assets be insufficient for this purpose. However, very properly, the Council has already indicated its intention so to conduct its affairs as to avoid the need for any such supplementary levy on the industry. Lastly, the order also provides for the application of any surplus money, after the liabilities of the council and its winding-up expenses have been met, for purposes consistent with the council's functions. It is naturally intended that such surplus moneys would be passed on to FIRA.
We expect that the council itself will complete as much as possible of the business of winding up its affairs. On the dissolution date, the remaining rights and obligations vest in my right hon. Friend. He will arrange to complete any outstanding business relating to the winding-up, including the collection of outstanding debts and the application of the surplus moneys.
I should like to finish by referring to the future of FIRA. The furniture industry is not a high-technology industry. We should acknowledge that. In relative terms it has only a comparatively low R and D expenditure. Nevertheless, there are important matters that need to be worked on. There are standards to be determined, materials to be tested and selected, designs to be proven and so on. No one disputes this. Nor is it disputed that FIRA has played a useful role in these and other areas in the past. It is certainly our wish that the work carried out by FIRA to the benefit of the industry shall continue. This is why the Government have been concerned that the transitional arrangements should be such as to allow FIRA to get off to a good start 'without the statutory levy and for BRA to continue to play a role of value to the furniture industry and in line with its wishes.
The majority of companies in the industry have now said they do not want a statutory levy any longer. I do not infer from this that those companies are saying that there is no more work to be done, that standards do not matter, that no new materials will be introduced, or that the ultimate in furniture designs has been reached. Of course, the votes against the levy mean no such thing. What they mean is that the companies want to choose for themselves how they spend their own money, to judge for themselves what work they need to have done, and to judge for

themselves whether they themselves, FIRA or some other institution altogether should do that work. I find bat wish altogether understandable and one that is in accordance with the sensible principle that people are the best judges of how to spend their own money.
We have not been dogmatic about this. In those cases where the majority of companies within an industry have felt that it is in their interests to retain a statutory levy—cutlery and iron castings, for example—we have accepted this. Equally, however, it would be wrong to oblige an unwilling industry to retain a statutory levy when it had made clear that it was opposed to it.
As a result of the draft order and the system of funding to which it will give rise, FIRA will be put in the position of the great majority of other research associations. Its success will be determined by its responsiveness to the needs of the industry that it serves. It is my belief that FIRA can succeed and will show itself responsive to the furniture industry's requirements—and this by the key test of furniture companies freely choosing to pay for its services. I believe also that the relationship thus established is the surest way of ensuring that FIRA stays attuned to the needs of the industry in future, to its own and the industry's mutual benefit.

Mr. John Garrett: I am alarmed that the order has not been adequately considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Why do we have the Joint Committee if we do not give it the opportunity to examine the validity of this sort of order and legislation? My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is in his place. I hope that he will inform the House of what failed to satisfy the Joint Committee on the validity of the order. It may have been something to do with the winding-up procedure.
The dissolution of the Furniture Development Council and the ending of the statutory levy on manufacturers to fund research at the Furniture Industry Research Association is a retrograde and short-sighted step that the Government and the industry will come to regret. It is not a victory for free enterprise, individual initiative and self-determination but a decision that will collectively weaken the ability of a hard-pressed industry to compete effectively.
The furniture industry is under extreme pressure. Like so many of our other long-established industries, it has fallen a victim to monetarism. High interest rates are crippling to such an industry. They have been accompanied by a fall in domestic demand and a high value of the pound. These are automatic consequences of the Government's ideological obsession with monetarist policies. The results have hit the industry especially hard.
Thus, there has been a massive increase in foreign imports of furniture and a loss of domestic employment. I understand that 130 furniture firms went out of business in 1980 alone. Employment in the industry fell from 76,000 to 65,000 last year. About 18,000 workers are on short time. Until the end of 1978 our exports of furniture were always greater than our imports. However, in 1979 and 1980 the trade surplus disappeared and last year exports were £194 million and imports were £282 million. In the first quarter of this year home deliveries to the retail trade were no less than 10 per cent. down on the previous year.
These few statistics reveal that the industry is facing a crisis. As it is essentially a small-scale industry with many small employers scattered throughout London and the South-East and other population centres, it does not attract much attention and concern. However, it is still a sizable industry and it is our responsibility to safeguard and defend it. At this time of all times, it is proposed to inflict massive damage on the one institution in the industry which exists to keep it in the forefront of technical advance, which is its research association. This has to be folly. As one member of the Furniture Development Council has written, it is
an irresponsible act of industrial vandalism.
Sir Roger Falk, the chairman of the Furniture Development Council, referred to it as
an absolutely unique body anywhere in the world
and said that this bewildering decision is one which will limit the future development of the industry.
The Furniture Development Council is not one of the Government's hated quangos. It costs the taxpayer nothing. The research association, which will lose 40 per cent. of its funding as a result of the Government's decision, has been highly cost effective and has been run on a tight budget. Its work has been of enormous worth to the industry from the 1950s, when it carried out research of universal value to the industry in design, timber and glue selection, resilience of springing, and strength of seating, until its more sophisticated work today.
The council has a unique repository of technical information. It has banks of information on machines and materials that are second to none in the world. It has a technical team of woodworking, upholstery, hardware, materials, plastics, production management and costing specialists and it responds to thousands of inquiries from manufacturers every year. It has responded to the need for management advice on value analysis, industrial engineering, production stock and quality control and training. It carries out valuable market research in an industry where marketing in the past has not been given the highest priority. It is now moving into microprocessor and robotic applications in the industry.
In such a fragmented industry, how could such programmes of work be carried out without a levy arrangement? All those services are available to the firms in the industry, large and small, for a levy of 0·05 per cent. of turnover. That sort of sum could be saved in most firms by tightening up materials control procedures alone. Such firms, in particular, will never be able to replace such a service at such a cost.
It is understandable that many small firms, faced with going to the wall, as many are at the moment, will look at every cost and be tempted to vote against the continuation of the levy. The entry point at a turnover of £3,000 was far too low and should have been raised over the years to around £15,000 or so today. It is true that 699 levy payers voted against the continuation of the levy, while 416 voted for it. However, representative associations—trade associations and the unions—wanted it to continue.
As I understand it, in previous quinquennial reviews of the continuance of the levy required by the legislation, representative bodies, such as the associations, were polled and there was not a ballot of all levy payers. I suspect that the ballot method was chosen because the

Government were not neutral in the issue and they wanted the levy to end according to a mad ideology of self-reliance. Even so, the Minister has discretion to make a final decision. In arriving at that decision, he should have placed greater weight on the views of the trade associations and the organisations representing the workers in the industry, who are universally opposed to the ending of the levy.
I wish to end on an important issue on which I want specific assurances from the Minister. There is some research for the industry which is of national importance, far greater than the interests of particular manufacturers, where the Department of Industry has a clear responsibility. Health and safety of operatives is one such area—work on dust control and working conditions. Who will pay for that in future? I believe that the Department must fund it. A more important example is the safety of upholstered furniture. By that I mean the flammability and ignitability of modern polyurethane upholstery filling. The House will be aware of the terrible tragedies which have happened as a result of the accidental ignition in homes and stores of those lethal materials. The matter was debated in the House as recently as 22 May 1980.
The House will know of the campaign on the issue conducted for more than a decade by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). I was first made aware of the terrible dangers of those polyurethane fillings by listening to a radio interview some years ago, in which my hon. Friend was questioned on the issue. I was horrified by what he had to say. At the time I thought that the subject was inadequately discussed. I went into the issue. Since then there have been major tragedies as a result of the flammability of those materials. The country has every reason to be grateful for my hon. Friend's knowledge and persistence in the face of official complacency and the unwillingness of the industry to do anything on the issue.
The Minister, speaking in last year's debate, referred to technical limitations of preventive measures in this area. She referred to research being carried out in this country. She also quoted the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council as saying that
upholstered furniture has the largest single potential for contributing to fire and toxicity hazard.
My hon. Friend said that the foam manufacturers were not likely to put much money into research for a substitute for polyurethane foam upholstery, and nor will the average run of manufacturers of upholstered furniture. If the manufacturers of foam will not pay, the users of the foam will not pay and the consumer is at such a risk from the dangers of the use of that material, who will pay?
The research must be a Government responsibility, yet at the moment the Government pay only 25 per cent. of the cost of that research at the Furniture Industry Research Association. When the levy ends, who will pay for it? I want an assurance that the Government will fund the research when the levy ends, through the requirements boards. The Minister cannot avoid the issue. If the Minister proposes that no additional funds will be available for research into finding substitutes for polyurethane foam fillings for upholstered furniture, and it is cut back, the Government will carry the responsibility for the consequences. That is clear and I want it to be understood by the Minister. I hope that he will give us a very firm undertaking to do something about it.
The order is a mistake and will be regretted. It will weaken the ability of the industry to compete successfully with foreign manufacturers. It will harm the buyers of furniture. It leaves unanswered the question of consumer and worker protection research—an area in which the Government must make their position clear.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) on the argument that he has put from the Front Bench against the order.
I intervened earlier on a point of order because I felt that one was entitled to hear the views of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It is a tragedy that, the House having made clear that statutory instruments should be examined by a Joint Committee of the House, a Department can then completely absolve itself from its responsibilities and submit an order such as this in the full knowledge not only that the matter has not been examined but that there is a doubt about it. Under any decent standard of behaviour, one would have expected the Department to wait until it had replied to the Statutory Instruments Committee before seeking to bring the order before the House. It is a disgrace that a Department should take such an attitude, running clearly contrary to the expressed desires of the House.
I should like to examine some of the points made in the order. It is stated at the beginning of the order that the people who were consulted by the Secretary of State were
the organisations representative of persons employed in those industries appearing to him to be appropriate".
What does that mean? Was my trade union consulted on whether we should get rid of the levy? Were we asked to vote? Let us examine this, because a great deal has been said about the voting and the way in which the industry has examined the question. It was not a question of bringing in some group to find out the feelings of the industry; it was done by the Department of Industry.
The Department asked two questions. The first was "Do you wish the levy to be continued?" Anyone who is asked "Do you want income tax to continue?" is unlikely to say "Yes". The second question was "If the statutory levy were abolished, would you be willing to contribute to collective furniture industry research by means of voluntary subscription?"
There is a list of what we are told were the results. They are given under headings of what are called turnover bands. I discussed it with those who had the job of examining these things and I was assured that there were problems and that the first problem was about the banding, because there was insufficient evidence available to the Department on it. The reasoning was that they could not determine the banding correctly and had to have wide bands to try to get an average.
It can be seen clearly that in the case of those under £50,000 turnover there were 329 votes and that 201 said they were against the statutory levy and 128 said they were for it. We ought to have added to that figure a further 329, because each of the firms should have allowed the representatives of the employees of the firm to vote, too. After all, they are all working in the same enterprise and they all have the same responsibilities. The results of BRA are just as important to those working in the industry, as I shall explain shortly. If in each of those firms the

managing director was allowed to have a vote I do not quite understand why it is argued that someone on behalf of the workers should not also have had a vote.
I can tell the Minister what the result would have been. On the figures that he quoted, in the under-£50,000 turnover band 61 per cent. said that they were against the levy. If one adds the further figure that I have suggested, however, the result would be 69 per cent. in favour of the levy. In the £50,000 to £250,000 band, 288 managing directors voted—201 against the levy and 87 in favour. If one adds 288 more votes, which would have been in favour of the levy, the result is 62 per cent, in favour of retaining the levy—an overwhelming figure. I see the Minister frowning. If he has the document, I will help him by taking him through the figures.
In the third band—turnover of £250,000 to £1 million—the first column gives the total vote as 276. That is the number of managing directors who voted. I am suggesting that for every one of those special category voters there should be added a vote representing my union members in the firm. One therefore adds to the column showing the number in favour a further 276 votes. That gives 371 votes in favour of the levy and only 181 against. That is 67 per cent.—an overwhelming figure—in favour of retaining the levy.
Therefore, when the Minister says that an overwhelming number are against the levy, that is not true. It is true on his fiddled figures, of course, but anyone can fiddle the figures and make sure that one does not ask for all the facts. The clear evidence is that he did not ask all the people. He asked only his friends, who he thought would give the right answer. They did not ask him to do it. There was no campaign in the industry. On the contrary, everyone was happy. It was the Department that decided to run this exercise in the first place. As has been pointed out, this is not a quango, so it was not a matter of trying to save public funds. The Department itself came forward with this. Presumably it had nothing better to do.
The Minister said in opening that he hoped and expected that the voluntary system would continue. He bases that, presumably, on the figures in this document relating to the second question. I suggest that he misled the House, because the House does not have the figures that he and I have. The overwhelming majority of managing directors who answered were against the suggestion, so what is this "I hope" business when he has the figures in front of him? In order to help the House, I will illustrate to the Minister why this is so.
The second question asked whether the respondents would be prepared to pay a voluntary subscription, so that the Minister could say that he hoped and prayed that it would continue. In the first band—turnover of under £50,000—out of 316 replies, 221 said that they would not pay a voluntary subscription and only 95 said that they would. They said overwhelmingly that they would have nothing to do with voluntary subscriptions. In the second band, out of 273 replies, 161 said that in no way would they pay voluntary subscriptions and only 112 said that they would. In the third band, out of 259 replies, 130 said that they would not subscribe and 129 said that they would. In the fourth band, out of 110 replies, 62 said that they would not subscribe voluntarily and only 48 said that they would.
On these figures alone—and they are fiddled figures anyway—there are no grounds for the Minister to claim that he "hopes" and "expects". He has given a totally unwarranted assurance to the House.
As to the question that the hon. Gentleman dreamt up in order to get the answer he wanted, the reply that comes out strongest of all is that he would not get a voluntary subscription. Therefore, this pious nonsense about "I hope and expect the voluntary system to continue" is clearly not backed up by anything.
The Minister said that the votes against a levy do not mean a vote against FIRA. In that case, I do not know what they mean. If one is asked "Do you want to get rid of the levy which keeps FIRA in business?" and one replies "Yes, I do", I do not see how that is not a vote against FIRA. Incidentally, if the Minister were to go further and ask "Will you try to keep it going?", the answer would probably be "No". In those circumstances, how can the Minister justify his claim that a vote against the levy does not mean a vote against FIRA? All the evidence is that that is exactly what it does mean. No undertaking has been given to the Minister, and he cannot give one to the House.
The two questions dreamt up by the Department were put voluntarily and answers were given by only half the industry. Only the managing directors were asked for their opinion. The other people in the industry were not asked. I speak on their behalf. They say that the Minister is totally wrong, and he ought to ask the views of everyone in the business.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South examined in detail what FIRA is for and what it is doing. The Minister will have to spend some time answering those points. FIRA has been responsible for a whole range of safety issues. I reinforce my hon. Friend's point. Who will now be responsible? It has taken years to get the industry to accept that FIRA could look at some of those issues. However, because FIRA's conclusions were not mandatory, it was a dickens of a job to get the firms to accept the results. How does the Minister expect the industry to keep FIRA going in the way that he has suggested when he knows full well that it will not do so?
Who will test adhesives? Where will the tensile strengths of the springs be tested? What about all the trouble we have had with timbers? The Minister has not worked in the industry and is probably unaware of the state of some of my union members' hands caused by dermatitis through handling afrormosia and other timbers from different parts of the world. Who will determine which timbers are dangerous? FIRA did that.
Some years ago, I asked the Minister's Department to state which timbers coming into Britain were dangerous. I again ask the question, and I insist upon an answer. Who will control that aspect of the industry, which hitherto has been dealt with by FIRA? If he thinks that the manufacturers will do it, he should think again. We had to fight the manufacturers to prove that the timbers they were importing, while cheap, could be dangerous. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that an importer of cheap timber will be particularly worried about checking whether it will cause trouble to workers' hands, he has another thought coming, because that is not what happens in the real world—even if there were a FIRA to do it voluntarily, which I doubt.
A tremendous amount of work has been done on noise. The wood-cutting machine regulations were recently updated. Noise is now scheduled in those regulations. As always, things were fiddled with and two parts were introduced. The first part made it mandatory for employers to keep machines running at acceptable noise levels, namely, under 80 decibels. The second part provided that if employers could not do that immediately, they could give their employees muffs or earplugs until they could. When the regulations were debated, I asked how they would be enforced. I pointed out that, as long as employees could use muffs or earplugs, employers would not silence their machines.
FIRA is giving advice and help on those machines. Firms do not ask for help and advice. They are being made to seek advice, because the factory inspector is being brought in. Therefore, firms are being driven to seek information. Day in and day out, my union members find that their hearing is being damaged by indolent employers, who will not silence their machines. If the Minister thinks that such firms will run to pay money to be told how to silence machines—when the regulations allow them to get away with muffs and earplugs—he must be living in a world of his own.
I want the Minister to tell me tonight whether the Department will be statutorily responsible for ensuring that FIRA's investigation of noise will continue. Will that be funded by the Department? If not, who will fund it? The House is entitled to know.
From 1968 onwards there has been a conflict over foam. That conflict has emerged both inside and outside the House. The same officials who advised Ministers in the Home Office are advising Ministers involved in consumer protection. The fight will continue. Men, women and children are dying day in, day out and week in, week out. Everyone knows why they are dying. If it were not for the polyurethane foam, many people would escape the fires. However, they cannot do so because of the foam's burning characteristics.
The Minister knows that I do not accept that fires are always accidental. Fires are not always started by matches and cigarettes. When the fire officer looks at the evidence after a fire, he cannot find the foam because the fire has consumed it. Therefore, he never considers foam, because it is not there. Not unreasonably, the fire officer does not think about it and just asks whether the person involved smoked. If the person smoked, the fire officer will conclude that the person fell asleep while smoking a cigarette. However, he may not have a shred of evidence for that conclusion.
If children who do not smoke are involved in a fire, the fire officer will inquire whether there were any matches in the home. Most people have matches in the house. The fire officer will then conclude that the children must have found them and set fire to the furniture. He may not have a shred of evidence to support that conclusion. However, the fire officer could find no other answer because there was no foam to be seen and he had to reach some conclusion. As a result, the fire officer will tell a story that is acceptable to society. People can understand adults smoking, or children playing with matches, and as a result we somehow salve our consciences.
We now have more evidence that foam is self-combustible. That is a much better conclusion to draw, but the Department will not accept it. No one wants to hear that answer because it is frightening. We got help only


from FIRA. That was the one body prepared to examine the issue independently and to see what could be done. The Minister spoke about firms helping. I asked the managing director of Dunlopillo some years ago what would happen if the company found a safe foam. I asked him whether he would give that foam freely to society. "Not likely" was the reply that I received. The company wants royalties paid because it has spent £500,000 on trying to find a solution to the problem posed by the dangerous foam.
I argued with the Department that it should fund the research itself. The agreement was to pay £36,000 over three years. That would not buy a house in London, let alone fund research work on foam. Nevertheless, it was paid and thereafter FIRA has continued to try to find an answer to this desperate problem. It is up to the Minister to tell us who will fund the research. We want no qualifications or hedging of bets. We want a straightforward answer. Will he pay it from his departmental fund? If not, who will? People working in the industry know that they are running into danger. That spells many problems for us all.
Another question that the Minister must answer concerns the foreign materials being imported. FIRA is being used to determine certain factors about such materials that may be incompatible with the regulations. Does the Minister believe that a firm will spend time and money importing from Eastern Europe and submit voluntarily what is being imported cheap—cheap and nasty—to an organisation that is being paid to carry out that work for it, only to be told that the furniture cannot be imported because it does not come up to our standards? I know the Minister well, and I do not believe that he is that stupid.
The Minister must answer some questions. What is the mandatory position? What rights will my union have in the protection of individuals working in the industry? The Department has taken the view that the workers in the industry do not matter because their views were not sought. They did not have a vote and it was said that it was not important for them to vote. I have to keep raising this matter in the House. Whenever I have problems, there is no one else to turn to. I have to go through one Department after another which has a touching point with the responsibilities within the industry.
Must I contine to keep coming to the Minister so that he can tell me that after tonight his Department will have no responsibility and that he hopes and expects that the voluntary system will work? Am I supposed to go away when our people working in the industry are subject to such dangers?
As I so often do, I have brought in the Health and Safety Commission. It turned to FIRA for advice. Do I understand that the Health and Safety Commission will pay FIRA for doing the work to get the answer? It is important to know who will do the work.
If I thought that everyone in the industry was as dedicated as the hon. Gentleman is for getting things right, I should be a happy man. It is a constant fight and battle to get the law complied with, never mind the consideration of any advanced thinking or initiatives. We have to fight and argue to get the implementation of the Factories Act now.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have asked questions. Recently I asked when the factory inspector last went down Hackney Road where furniture is manufactured on the pavement. Any of my constituents walking down that

road with a baby in a pram has to go into the main road because she cannot pass the furniture being manufactured on the pavements. The shops are covered with dust. Any other firms would be put out of business. The commission has said that it will take five years and it still may not be able to visit one or more of those factories.
We have desperately tried to raise the standards by using FIRA. How does the Minister expect it to be done? In his opening remarks he piously said that nobody expects the standards to go down. FIRA has said that it will do all that it can. What does that mean if it is out of business or does not have enough money? How much money will the Department put into this venture? Will it give any subvention at all to FIRA, or will it opt out entirely?
I am totally unsympathetic towards the order. That is not because I represent the furniture workers' union. As one examines this matter, one can see a whole era being destroyed. That is not a bad thing if there are reasonable grounds for wanting to destroy it.
The starting point is that the Furniture Development Council has been unique, as Sir Roger Falk rightly says, in any industry in any country. Sir Roger thought that the views of the people in the industry were important. They were offered the chance to have their say—unlike the position with the Minister, who decided that their views were not worth having. He relied on his managing director friends. They are the only people who answered his question, because they were the only people who were given the question to answer. Sir Roger Falk rightly welded the industry together—the manufacturers. the retailers and the workers. Everyone formed part of a family with the purpose of producing good quality furniture which was of value to the consumer because he received a good quality product.
The consumer had better understand his interest in the order, because he will now be getting a product that is likely to be of far lower quality. It will not be long. The Minister smiles, but we have moved a long way in this industry. It was not so long ago that tea chests were used in the manufacture of furniture. We had louse-ridden fillings. The Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Act 1951 did not come about because someone thought that a would be a good idea. My union had to fight to get it on the statute book, because our people were having to handle rotten filthy fillings which manufacturers were importing and using. Our people often contracted dermatitis. The Rag Flock Act stopped that. The Furniture Development Council came about because of the rotten standards in the industry. The consumer was being diddled because he could not see what he was purchasing.
This issue is not a simple matter of saying "We are getting rid of the levy, and things will be all right " What the Minister is doing is lowering the standards of quality of the product. There will be no way in which we can maintain them, because no one will pay to have the standards set for him. It will be claimed that that will cost more money. I should like to believe that it was that pious, but I know that it is not so, and the Minister must know that.
I shall do my best to stop the order going through tonight. It will mean a diminution of the product. It will be a bad day for workers in the industry and manufacturers—and there are many—who have a high quality of work and who are trying to maintain standards to make us competitive abroad in quality. Exports have been improving with the help of the FDC over the years.


Therefore, our thrust into foreign markets is much deeper now than it has been for many years. That will go, because if the FDC no longer exists to help and guide there will be no one else to do it.
I hope that hon. Members will join me in opposing the order. It is disgraceful that it was brought forward in the first place, the Department knowing that it had not passed through the proper procedures of the House. We have not had the benefit of knowing the views of the Statutory Instruments Committee.
The order was designed not because the industry asked for it but because the Departments of Trade and Industry decided to get rid of this organisation because there was some idea that it would satisfy the Government's friends, who thought that it was not popular in the industry. When the question was put to the Minister's friends within the industry, the majority said, "We don't want to pay a levy." Then, however, his friends let him down. Instead of agreeing to pay a voluntary subscription, they have made clear that there will be no voluntary subscription. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw, when he replies, his statement that he hopes and expects that the voluntary system will work. He knows that it will not work. If he intends to challenge my remarks, he had better take me through the paper I have just taken him through and show me how he interprets the figures to enable him to say piously that he hopes a voluntary system will work when the majority of his friends say that it will not.
I want the Minister to give an undertaking on foam, noise and timbers. Who will pay? Individual manufacturers had not paid before the FDC was established and will not do so in the future if the voting figures are believed. Will the Minister pay? If not, he is duty bound to spell out who will pay. Or is it now understood that all these factors, so vital to all engaged in the industry and also to consumers, will be lost in the idea that at 1.30 am we can perpetrate a fraud on society by passing the order quickly and washing our hands of the whole issue on 31 December 1982?

Mr. Bob Cryer: The reason why the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments did not have the opportunity to present a report to Parliament for helping and guiding the House in its consideration of the order was that the Government Whips are running out of time. Our daily agenda, the Order Paper, is crowded with items because the Whips have misjudged the amount of business that has to be dealt with, presumably before 29 July, when, no doubt, in their sycophantic adulation, they will not wish the House to meet. I hope that it does. At least, there would be some useful occupation on that media-crowded day.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments was set up by the House for a purpose—protection for the consumer in legislation. It was designed not by chance but because of the discovery that a Minister, in the early 1940s, had acted illegally in the use of his subordinate powers. He did not have the powers to use, in any event. The House therefore set up a Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I am its Chairman, appointed as a member of the Opposition, to pursue the scrutiny work of the Committee with zeal just as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts is, by convention, a

member of the Opposition. There is little point in the House taking such action if the Joint Committee is not given the opportunity to report an instrument and present information to the House.
I am not saying that the Committee would have pursued that approach in this case. I cannot say anything on behalf of the Committee. The way that the Committee operates is to make a report to the House. No individual represents the Committee. The Committee itself decides whether to bring the attention of the House to a matter. When a Minister is unable, apparently, to exercise his power not to move an instrument, as was the case tonight, he denies the democratic processes set up by the House. If the Government say that they are concerned about democracy, they have to express that concern by action.
On a previous occasion when an order concerning the assisted places scheme was brought before the House and placed on the Order Paper and when consideration by the Joint Committee was not completed, the then Leader of the House withdrew the instrument until the assessment had been made and the report made to the House. That delayed the order for a considerable time, though, as I explained to the Minister, it need not have done so. The then Leader of the House has since been sacked. Perhaps he had too great a regard for democracy and the democratic processes of the House. The Prime Minister, who has no regard for democracy or for the democratic procedures of the House, used him as a symbol to emphasise her rigid doctrinaire adherence to her rotten policies.
The Minister has offered to answer points that I raise. But he cannot do that. The Committee is not here; we cannot make a joint decision about the hon. Gentleman's comments. He cannot substitute a response tonight for information that the Committee sought.
That information was sought not by me, but by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page), a former Chairman of the Committee, who was knighted for his service to the area of public life to which he has contributed. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman was looking forward to receiving the answer to the query that he raised in Committee.
Section 9 sets out the procedure for settlement of the council's debts and liabilities; and the Committee asked how creditors would be notified about the procedure. The Department replied that there would be notices in the London Gazette, and the right hon. Gentleman asked why the procedure was not incorporated in the order.
On a previous occasion when a Department had assured the Committee that all creditors would be taken account of, a member of the Committee had correspondence with a person affected who had not been taken account of by the Department. Bearing that experience in mind, the Committee asked why the order did not contain the procedure for winding up the council.
It is not a question of vires. The Minister has powers to improve the order, and that is part of the procedure that the Committee examines, along with ambiguity, unusual use of powers and so on. The further answer of the Department might have satisfied the Committee. There is no guarantee that we would have reported the order to the House, but the Minister, by not withdrawing it, has robbed the Committee of its right to make a judgment and robbed the House of the right to have the views of the Committee and the information provided by the Department.
When the Committee reports its views, it includes the views of the Department by printing the memorandum that it provides. If the Committee wishes to report an


instrument to the House and raise criticial points, it has a duty to seek a memorandum from the Department concerned. The Committee had an obligation to seek information; it would be unfair not to do so. But, although the Committee acts fairly, it is, apparently, open to the Minister to act unfairly and to disregard the scrutiny that the Committee carries out.
As a Minister I was probably the last person to extend the compulsory levy. I did so enthusiastically after the due processes. I toured FIRA and was extremely impressed by its work. If the Minister adheres to the notion that a number of competing units in the industry will get together in a co-operative venture to meet competition from abroad or to improve export prospects, he ought to think again. The 40 per cent. contribution to FIRA was an important component of its income. It was improving standards, design and safety. There are no alternative facilities.
Is Japan likely to follow such a foolhardy step and stop paying for an organisation which is developing design standards techniques and safety factors? Of course it is not. No other competitive country acts in such a foolish and doctrinaire way to attack the standards which industry has built up. In Japan there is a more co-operative relationship with industry. The same applies to France and Germany. It is absurd for the Government to go down this road.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) described how workers have to fight for protection. Work is not the easy, carefree activity that many people in the higher echelons of the Civil Service, and some Ministers with their cars purring, seem to think that it is. Workers have a day-to-day struggle. They have to press, organise and fight for safety standards. The implementation of the order portrays a lack of care for those who get their hands dirty in the manufacturing side of furniture and allied industries. On every basis, the order is not justified. There is a strong case for not taking the order tonight, or ever.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that 30 per cent. of the votes against the levy represent only 0·04 per cent. of gross turnover?

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend emphasises clearly that only the representatives of capital have a vote. In my book, labour should be at least equal to capital. In my book, humanity is superior to material possessions or their representation by money. In my book, the industry could not survive without the workers. Yet they have been ignored by the Minister in the ballot which was rigged in its selectivity. On every basis the order should not be approved. The Minister has ignored parliamentary procedures and outside he has ignored the democratic and sensible procedures which would benefit the industry.

Mr. MacGregor: I shall endeavour to answer as many questions as I can. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) made general remarks about how the decision on the statutory levy requested by the industry will affect the future of the furniture industry. He said that it would have a serious effect on the quality of the industry and its ability to compete. That is not the view of the majority in the industry. Those who continue to support FIRA and benefit from it—and about 42 per cent. support it on a voluntary basis—will be free to do so. I understand

the passionate views on this issue, but we have heard a little exaggeration, to say the least, about some of the effects of tonight's decision, and that is one of them.
I do not accept that a system of voluntary funding, a system which applies in practically every industry, cannot work just as well for furniture. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) must tell us what is so special about the furniture industry that justifies his saying that when the industry does not want the statutory levy it will be unable to continue to exist with a voluntary levy when every other industry can do so.
Furniture manufacturers are just as capable as those in other industries of making the right decisions. The majority of companies do not want the statutory levy. They must be confident of facing the future without research funded on a compulsory basis. We are not saying that research should be funded on a compulsory basis. If what FIRA has on offer is appropriate to the furniture industry's needs, furniture manufacturers will wish to use its services and to pay for them. If it is not appropriate to their needs, it will, without the cushion of the statutory levy, soon recognise that and be encouraged to adapt to the industry's real needs. That seems to be a far more healthy and responsible state of affairs than the continuation of a statutory levy system which does not exist in other industries and which has clearly lost the confidence of many of those required to pay for it.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: No.

Mr. MacGregor: Well, it clearly has, because those required to pay for it voted against its continuation.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: The Hansard report will show that the Minister clearly said at the Dispatch Box tonight that a vote against the levy is not a vote against FIRA.

Mr. MacGregor: It is not a vote against FIRA. It is a vote against the statutory levy. As I have explained, it is the continuation of a statutory levy that has lost the confidence of many of those required to pay for it.
FIRA is not being asked to move overnight from statutory to voluntary funding. We asked the industry for its views and it gave them. I readily acknowledge that many feel that FIRA does useful work and that they derive benefit from it. But the strong preponderance of view in the industry is that the statutory levy should go.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: And the voluntary levy.

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, a majority said that, too, but a very high minority say that they are prepared to make voluntary subscriptions to FIRA. Many others would, no doubt, be prepared to pay for work that they wished FIRA to do, and in that way FIRA would be responding to the real needs of the industry. I am not prepared to say that we know better than the industry what its true needs are or that its preferences should be disregarded.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South said that we should have paid much greater regard to the associations than to the individual companies. He said that a number of associations had indicated that they were in favour of a statutory levy. We consulted widely. Let me respond to a question from the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch. As he knows, the unions were consulted as part of the consultation process. I must tell the hon. Member for Norwich, South that a considerable number of associations were against the retention of a statutory levy—the Business Equipment Trade Association


representing office furniture manufacturers, the British Woodworking Federation representing kitchen furniture and fitment manufacturers, the Office Machines and Equipment Federation, the Chair Frame Manufacturers Association and the Association of Master Upholsterers. So the picture with the associations is by no means the clear one that the hon. Gentleman sought to paint in his opening remarks.
I turn next to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Furniture Development Council. The hon. Gentleman said that this should not have been part of the Pliatzky process because the Furniture Development Council is not a quango and it does not cost the Government anything. I readily concede this point. I was not trying to suggest that it did cost the Government anything. The levy exercise was not within the Pliatzky process. It was a different process. The point is that this was not just a question of getting rid of a body for the sake of it. We consulted widely in the industry before we took the decision to put this draft order before the House.
The point about the Furniture Development Council is not that it does not cost the Government anything. The point is that it is engaged in compulsory levy collecting. We are suggesting its abolition because the industry does not now want a compulsory levy imposed on it. As the hon. Member for Norwich, South—who is fair in these matters—will acknowledge, and as Sir Roger Falk now says, the sole purpose of the council is to collect the levy, so that the real point—I do not think that there is much between us on this—concerns the statutory levy. If the decision on the statutory levy is to remove it, the sole pupose of the council disappears.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch suggested that what we were doing was causing FIRA to lose 40 per cent. of its revenue. It is not true and should not turn out to be the case. It is true that 40 per cent. of its present income comes from the compulsory levy, but FIRA will still be well able to look for voluntary subscriptions, the level of which will be a matter for it. It is clear from the fact that so many companies have responded to the questionnaire saying that they would be prepared to make voluntary contributions that one cannot say that the whole 40 per cent. or anything like it would go. The more that FIRA makes clear, as the hon. Member said throughout his speech, that the work that it is doing is highly relevant to the industry, the greater are the prospects of increasing its revenue through a voluntary method, in the same way as nearly every other industry research association does.
I have one or two comments to make about the method of ballot used. We consulted thoroughly with FIRA about the whole ballot process before undertaking it. The original work took place before I came to the Department, but I have looked carefully at the way in which it was done. I absolutely reject the hon. Member's suggestion that this was "cooked up" by what he described as "my friends in the industry" to get the questions and answers that I wanted—or that my predecessor wanted. I reject that and I would like to show some of the processes through which we went. I hope that that will make the point clear.
The procedures for the ballot of companies were agreed beforehand with the council. With the ballot forms, all levy-paying companies received a long and detailed letter from the chairman of the Furniture Development Council.

This urged them to consider the longer-term implications and to support the continuation of the levy. The companies certainly did not vote without being invited to consider carefully all aspects of the matter. Indeed, if there was any bias in the proceedings it was such as to favour a vote for the continuation of the levy. What went out to the member companies was the straight ballot form and the letter from the chairman urging them to support continuation of the levy, with reasons for so doing.
One has to say, as a result of the ballot, that the arguments for the levy failed to convince sufficient of the companies in the industry. The choice of how to vote was exercised by the levy-paying companies and it is their decision that we are now saying should be respected. Otherwise, what is the point of undertaking a ballot in the first place? It was a perfectly normal ballot. The questions were simple and straightforward, because that is the best way of getting a clear response. The more we confused the questions, the more difficult it would have been to judge what were the views of those who received the questionnaire. But in this case the questions were simple and the results very clear.
After the ballot, but before the results were known, the council's chairman wrote to my predecessor referring to
the very thorough study of the industry attitude to the statutory levy which has been undertaken.
That was his view, and he was very close to the matter. I understand his disappointment at the result, but he did not complain about the conduct of the ballot.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South raised a number of important issues to do with safety, which were followed up by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch. There is no reason to believe that FIRA must abandon its useful work, particularly in this area, just because the statutory levy is abolished. The testing of materials, for example, is done by FIRA not from the proceeds of the levy but on a repayment basis under contracts with the various manufacturers concerned. FIRA henceforward will have every incentive to promote all these services, for which it charges. Its equipment for testing the ignitability of materials was grant-aided by the Department's research and development requirements board. This type of assistance will still be available for any appropriate new work programme.
Many other industries face the need to conform to statutory requirements. I felt that many of the points made by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch really related to statutory requirements or possibly an argument about whether statutory requirements should be introduced—as he knows, some have been—or whether the matter should be related to the work of the Health and Safety Executive. Many industries face this need to conform with statutory or other requirements, or to field representatives on standards or other committees to argue about matters concerned with their affairs. These situations are in no way unique to the furniture industry. The other industries manage their affairs without statutory levies, and I have no reason to doubt that the furniture industry would do exactly the same.

Mr. John Garrett: Is the Minister saying that in respect of research carried out by FIRA into the ignitability and flammability of polyurethane foam upholstery fillings his Department will do no more than it has done in the past, which is to give a grant for testing equipment, as I understand it—a grant that amounts to only 25 per cent.


of the total cost of this kind of testing? If that is so, that is inadequate, because it is a national problem and a national responsibility. Therefore, the Department of Industry should fund research into the matter. Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Government will fund the total cost of research into the flammability and ignitability of polyurethane upholstery? It is clear that nobody else will.

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot give the undertaking that the Department or the Government will fund the total cost. It was not necessary to do so for the research done already. By making selective financial support available to FIRA, through the requirements boards, the Government have recognised not only the importance of some of the subjects that the hon. Gentleman has raised but FIRA as an important part of the technological infrastructure of the furniture industry, with relevant programmes of work agreed with industrial companies.
I have said that we expect to continue to support specific work at FIRA in the same way as in the past, but it is up to FIRA to put suitable proposals for support to the Department's requirements boards. The director of FIRA is aware of this.
Many of the points to do with safety refer to arguments about whether there should be a statutory responsibility. If such a responsibility is put on the manufacturer, it is up to the manufacturer to meet it. This is done in other industries, without the existence of a statutory levy. The manufacturers who are faced with a need will have an incentive to support useful work carried out by FIRA, because they will have to meet the statutory responsibilities. FIRA will carry out work on a repayment basis, and that can he in addition to the voluntary subscriptions.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch spoke with passion. I know that he feels strongly about these issues, although, as a result, in a number of places he exaggerated his case. I pay a warm tribute to his work with the industry. I am aware of his views. One of my first actions when I came to the Department was to agree—almost straight away, I think—to meet the hon. Gentleman and union representatives. We went over the whole area thoroughly. We have discussed the issues that the hon. Gentleman put to me on that occasion. They were carefully considered before the decision was made that brought the order before the House. The hon. Gentleman advanced his arguments extremely courteously when we had our discussion.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the voting results. His argument seemed to be "If you do not like the decision of the straight result, you find another way of interpreting the figures." There are endless ways of interpreting figures. The hon. Gentleman has no grounds for knowing that every employee of every company would go the way that he wishes to go. However, he threw them all in as being entirely on his side. He has no real evidence to support that. It is much more sensible to accept the straight results.
It is management which has to take decisions about expenditure and overheads. It is management which is in the best position to consider a statutory levy. It is for management to decide how it arrives at a decision. I have indicated that the chairman of the Furniture Development Council considered that we acted thoroughly and fairly. I repeat that from our point of view we had to consider the

overall result. I have conceded that the voting was much closer in the larger companies. Overall there could be no doubt about the way in which the result went.
The hon. Gentleman said that the ballot was not popular in the industry. Surely, industry has made it clear in the result that has emerged from the ballot exactly what it thinks about the statutory levy.
The hon. Gentleman talked about lowering the standard or the quality of the product in the furniture industry. think that he exaggerated his case. He was suggesting that, if we abolished the statutory levy, the quality of products would fall, that the companies would have a reducing share of the market, and that imports of presumably better quality from overseas would rise. I do not think that that would be the effect of the abolition of the statutory levy. It would hardly be in the interests of the companies to allow that to happen. If the hon. Gentleman is right and if the standards in the industry can be maintained only by the statutory levy to FIRA, he is showing little faith in the ability of the industry to compete.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) referred to the Joint Committee. I am happy to deal now with the point raised by the Committee. I am in some difficulty about the matter because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, my Department has been corresponding with the Joint Committee about another question. The correspondence was entered into in good time. The question that was supplementary to the memorandum that we submitted reached my Department by telephone late this afternoon and after the business of the House had started. The procedure of late questions would be a way of stopping many of these issues from reaching the Floor of the House.
We were asked why the order does not require the Furniture Development Council to advertise the duties imposed on its creditors by article 9. First, the Department has the council's assurance that it intends to arrange for appropriate publicity to be given. It has been working closely with the council and FIRA in establishing all the arrangements for the transitional period, and I have every confidence that under Sir Roger Falk's chairmanship the council will abide by the assurance.
Article 10 of the order imposes on the Furniture Development Council the duty to do such things as the Secretary of State considers necessary for facilitating the winding up and dissolution of the council. We shall keep in mind the point that the Joint Committee has pressed on us on two occasions. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the appropriate publicity will be given.
I can give the hon. Member for Keighley a further assurance, which I think is important. The creditors would not be precluded from payment by a failure to comply with the provisions of article 9. With the liabilities of the council at its disillusion vesting in the Secretary of State, there is no risk of the creditors being unpaid.

Mr. Cryer: I wish to answer a point which the Minister made at the beginning of his relevant remarks to this matter. The Joint Committee had no wish to stop the order coming on to the Floor of the House. The reason why the question was asked only earlier today was that the Joint Committee considered the memorandum from the Minister's Department yesterday evening, so that a relatively short time had elapsed between the consideration by the Joint Committee and the question to his Department.

Mr. MacGregor: The request came to me very late. It was a specific and fairly simple question. I hope that I have satisfactorily answered it to the House, as well as to the Joint Committee.
Many of the fears have been exaggerated, but what comes out strikingly is that it is the industry which has voted—surely, in a democratic situation we should respond to that—for the ending of the compulsory levy. Few other industries now have such a statutory levy and their research associations continue to do useful work. I have no doubt that FIRA will do so. It is right, when the industry has made its view clear—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion,MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Furniture Development Council (Dissolution) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 23rd June, be approved.

Wytch Farm Oilfield

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Newton.]

Miss Betty Boothroyd: rose—

Mr. Nicholas Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This Adjournment debate relates to a part of Dorset and, indeed, to the constituency of an hon. Member who is not able to be present. The purpose of my point of order is to ask whether it is in order that Adjournment debates should be used by an hon. Member for a matter relating to a constituency which is not the hon. Member's own constituency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I have no control over that. It is for the hon. Member concerned to decide what Adjournment debate he or she wishes to initiate.

Miss Boothroyd: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I can answer that point of order by saying, as I intended to do at the outset, that I raise the question of the enforced sale of the British Gas Corporation's holding in the Wytch Farm oilfield for three reasons.
The first is that I believe the Government action is robbing the British public, whose taxation has matched the expertise and the initiative of the British Gas Corporation. I hope that the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), who raised the point of order, is listening to my reasons. As I said, the taxpayer is being robbed because it is that money, matched with experience and initiative, that has made British Gas's onshore oil development the success story that it undoubtedly is.
The second reason is that the directive is nothing short of sabotage of a successful and profitable State industry whose statutory duty it is to protect the customers' interests.
The third reason, equally important, is that the Government have no mandate for their action.
Although I have no direct representative status in this House for the area concerned, I am a taxpayer, I represent thousands of taxpayers, and as an elected Member I shall use every parliamentary opportunity to demonstrate that the Government's decision is based on doctrine. It is doctrine whereby the Government have applied the principle, irrespective of the facts and irrespective of the circumstances, facts and circumstances they have decided totally to ignore.
A characteristic of industrial development has been that if a new technology becomes available, industry must be free to take advantage of it. That was recognised by a Conservative Government in 1972, when the Gas Act of that year gave the right to British Gas to explore for gas and for oil. Less than 10 years later the Government are seeking to tear up that statutory right.
One of the reasons that the Government peddle for so doing is that they say that these things are better done by the private sector. What nonsense. I mention this because I would not wish the Secretary of State to overlook the fact that, had it not been for the initiative taken at the time by British Gas, and had it not invested and backed the geologists' report, no exploration would have been carried out, because the private sector was not prepared to take the risk involved.
It is true that British Petroleum acted in a consortium, and tribute has to be paid to BP for training some of the staff and for seconding some of the experienced people in the early phases of exploration. But throughout BP remained sceptical about the entire exploration programme, and it has to be placed on record that British Gas was the driving force.
I turn briefly to the cost and the revenue of the venture. I understand that to date the capital cost of development since 1973 is about £20 million, of which about a quarter has been used in careful protection of the environment of an important rural area. I want to return to that in a moment or two.
At the current rate of production of 4,000 barrels of oil daily, the annual revenue from the field is about £22 million. As to the future, the estimated reserve potential of that field is 100 million barrels of crude oil. Of course the field is profitable. The Minister knows that, the gas industry knows it and the country knows it. The Government would not be selling it off if it were not profitable.
The Opposition have come to recognise that the Conservatives are constantly demanding profitability, especially from nationalised industries. If a nationalised industry makes a loss, we hear primaeval noises from the Government Benches attacking the management of nationalised industries for incompetence and lack of commercial judgment. Management is told that it must exploit the commercial possibilities when it sees them.
Here is a nationalised industry whose profitability and success are a monument to the dedication of its work force. Its reward for that dedication and initiative is to be told to sell it off. Instead of financing future investment from profit, therefore, it will have to do so either by charging the customer higher tariffs or by borrowing, which is ultimately a burden on the taxpayer, so the burden is on the taxpayer in any event.
That is why I say that the Government are sabotaging the gas industry and behaving towards the taxpayer no better than a pickpocket at a racecourse. I feel strongly about this behaviour, and that is why I have chosen to raise this matter today.
At the risk of being cynical, I should tell the Minister that I have done some research. I hope that he has, too. I can find no evidence of any Government anywhere in the world over the past 20 years selling off its oil wells—if the Minister knows of one, perhaps he will put that on record—let alone a Government who have sold their oil wells to reduce their own public borrowing. Yet that is the game being played by the Government.
The Secretary of State has seen the figures. He must know that oil and gas values are currently languishing after OPEC's moderation and that the proceeds will not raise their true value at this time. Perhaps it was partly for that reason that a Dorset county councillor wrote in an open letter to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson):
The Government's decision to issue this directive now is akin to selling hay at haymaking time".
That is very apt and needs no further comment from me.
The Secretary of State must also know that the proceeds of a sale will make only a very short-term dent in the public sector borrowing requirement and will in fact increase it in the years ahead because, as I have said, the corporation will be able to fund less of its investment from its own resources. I should have thought that the Secretary of State

would have seen the figures on what will happen to the public sector borrowing requirement. If the penny has not dropped in his mind, it must have done so with the Treasury. The Treasury must surely know that the initial beneficial effects of a sale on the PSBR, to anybody in the tax position of British Gas, would diminish in about three years. There is a logic in the law of diminishing returns, and the Minister surely knows it.
It would actually pay the Government to raise the money on the open market—I do not know whether the Minister will tell me today what the cost is, but figures have been bandied about as to the likely price of the Wytch Farm oilfield—and buy it themselves from British Gas. It is true that they would pay high rates of interest, but that interest would not be indexed whereas, because of the known potential oil find in that area, they would he buying an indexed asset at a fixed money cost. They would be on a winning ticket.
Instead, the Government are indulging in nothing less than national asset-stripping. I give the Minister fair warning that we shall not support the sale of Britain's seed corn and that with the return of a Labour Government those assets that he now intends to sell will be restored to British Gas at the earliest opportunity.
I want to turn for a few moments—this is important to those in the area—to the care that has gone into protecting the environment during this development. British Gas has proved that industrial advance need not conflict with local interest. There is ample evidence to show that the local authorities in the Dorset area have responded to the care taken in protecting the environment and preserving the landscaping. They have obvious faith and trust in the partnership that has been forged with British Gas.
But I am sure that the Minister is aware of the disquiet in the area. Less than a week ago, a view was expressed by local authority members at a planning meeting when they were examining a proposal for exploration from the British Gas Corporation. They said that they were worried because they had no idea who the final owners would be.
One committee member went so far as to say:
I am of the opinion that we should not give permission for some company of whom we know nothing and with whom we have had no negotiations".
To be on the safe side, they deferred the decision on the planning application. That typifies the attitude that British Gas is beginning to find, and it expresses a lack of confidence in the future by those whose elected duty it is to safeguard the environment. Great concern has also been voiced by the Council for the Protection of Rural England.
I shall conclude because I want to hear the Minister's reply. I want him to give me figures, and I also have another question to put to him. In deciding to sell the corporation's share of the oilfield, it seems obvious that the quality of the Government's decision-making is abysmal. There has been no quality input in the process of arriving at that decision. It is as threadbare as a worn-out dishcloth. The decision springs purely from doctrine, and it is fanned by yelping Conservative Back Benchers seeking to reduce the authority of the public sector.
Moreover, the Government have no mandate from the electorate for their action. I have read their manifesto thoroughly, and page 15 refers to nationalisation. However, it says nothing relating to this. Government by directive—which this is—aimed at smashing a profitable State industry has no place in that manifesto with which the Tory Party conned the electorate.
The Government can go some way towards redeeming themselves. I ask the Minister to refer this matter for inquiry. I am entitled to do that in an Adjournment debate. He should refer it for inquiry by the Select Committee on Energy. This is a proper matter for such an inquiry, and the fact that the Government have no mandate makes it important that they should so refer it. The circumstances leading to the decision, and the lack of quality in that decision-making, demand that such an inquiry be held.
I believe that the Secretary of State has acted high-handedly and arrogantly towards the people of Britain, not only towards those in the Dorset area. The only respectable course open to him is to move towards a full inquiry which will bring some satisfaction to those in the industry and to the people of the country.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Norman Lamont): The hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) has raised an extremely important subject. She takes a close interest in the affairs of the British Gas Corporation and it is not surprising that she has alighted on this issue. It is not within my gift, but it is possible that there will be a full-scale debate on the Opposition prayer against the draft direction, which requires the BGC to dispose of its licence interest in Wytch Farm and which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament. This debate at least gives me a chance to dispel some of the myths and misconceptions surrounding the Government's action. I regret to say that the hon. Lady repeated some of those myths.
It might be useful if I begin by filling in a little of the background to the present situation. The Wytch Farm licence is held jointly by BGC and BP, as the hon. Lady said. It has long been known that there are oil deposits in that area of Dorset. The licence to explore the Wytch Farm field dates back to the 1960s. Concentrated drilling effort and the discovery of significant reserves did not take place until 1973–74. Actual production commenced in March 1979 and 165,000 tonnes of oil was produced last year. Average production in 1980 was 3,000 barrels per day. This may well build up to 20,000 to 25,000 barrels per day by the late 1980s, although the final depletion profile has yet to be settled.
Therefore, although Wytch Farm is our largest known onshore field and makes a valuable contribution to our oil production, it is quite small compared with fields in the North Sea. However, as the hon. Lady emphasised, it is a valuable asset.
I turn to the factors underlying the action that the Government have taken. The Government's decision should come as no surprise to anyone. It is certainly not true, as the hon. Lady suggested, that the Government have no mandate to carry out this decision. We have always made it plain that we intend to reduce the size of the public sector wherever possible by transferring to the private sector activities which could equally well be performed there. The proceeds of hiving off such operations can also provide a useful contribution to the Government's overall economic strategy, by reducing the public sector borrowing requirement. But this is not the sole, or even the main, aim. We firmly believe that there is no reason why any activity which can perfectly well be

done in the private sector should be retained by the public sector. We have pursued that aim in many areas. We have encouraged various nationalised industries to hive off peripheral activities into subsidiaries. The British Rail subsidiaries are a case in point. British Rail has hived off hotels, Sealink and Seaspeed. That is an example of a large industry that has hived off peripheral activities into a subsidiary. There is no reason why the energy sector should be any different.
We have made some progress towards privatisation in the energy sector, with our plans to privatise Amersham International and with the announcement made earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs about the future of the corporation's retailing activities, which are to be transferred, over a period of time, to the private sector.
The hon. Lady asked whether I could recall an example of a Government selling off oil assets. I sat there racking my brain and trying to recall an example. I vaguely remember something about Newfoundland and its Government putting oil assets into a subsidiary. However, I do not know why I worked so hard. There is an example nearer to home. The hon. Lady may remember that the Labour Government sold some of their shares in BP. The hon. Lady may think that her analogy of being as threadbare as an outworn dishcloth is appropriate.

Miss Boothroyd: I spoke about oil wells, not shares.

Mr. Lamont: There does not seem to be a great difference of principle between selling oil wells and selling shares in them.
The Government's decision, after full consultation with the Gas Corporation and after careful consideration of its representations, to direct BGC to dispose of its interest in the Wytch Farm field licence is entirely consistent with the Government's fundamental policy objectives. It is very difficult to see why a publicly owned gas utility, whose main statutory duty is to supply gas to consumers as economically as possible, should be devoting its energy and resources to an activity like developing and operating an oilfield, particularly when this is a task which could easily, and indeed more naturally, be performed by the private sector.
The hon. Lady has asked about comparisons elsewhere in the world. I know of no other gas utility that has interests that are as extensive as those of the Gas Corporation. They extend from exploration and development in the North Sea right to the retailing of appliances in high street shops.
The reality, indeed, the problem, underlying such a widespread, extensive network of activities is that the bigger, more extensive and varied a State monopoly becomes, the more difficult it is for the Government to see whether it is efficient. Certainly profitability is no indicator of efficiency in a monopoly industry, especially where one is dealing with a corporation whose market situation is similar to that facing British Gas where there is an excess demand for the product. The only remedy is to check and reverse the ubiquitous spread of monopoly power by removing those activities which can and ought to be performed elsewhere and placing them in the private sector where they will have to be efficient to survive. That is what we are proposing to do with BGC's share in Wytch Farm.
I turn now to some of the more detailed of the various misapprehensions which, as I mentioned at the beginning


of my speech, seem to surround this subject. First, a number of people, including the Gas Corporation, have stated that without the corporation's drive and determination oil would never have been found at Wytch Farm.
I am happy to join the hon. Lady in paying a tribute to the corporation's skill and professionalism in appraising and developing the field. It has been a job well done. BGC's partner in the field, to whom the hon. Lady paid tribute, BP, has an outstanding record of exploration in the North Sea arid elsewhere. I am sure that the House would find it difficult to believe that it would never have discovered or developed the full potential of the field. It must be clear to anyone who knows anything about the oil industry that drilling programmes are a matter of assigning priorities. Unlike BGC, the exploration and production activities of which are confined to the United Kingdom mainland and the continental shelf in the North Sea, BP has worldwide interests. It is true, as the hon. Lady said, that BGC pressed ahead. That is no reason to conclude that BP had abandoned or written off the field and would not have wished to sanction further drilling at a later stage.
The hon. Lady also paid tribute to the considerable environmental care that BGC has devoted to the field in a sensitive area. I agree with her. She is correct. The corporation has been very sensitive to the demands of the environment in an area that is of great importance. No doubt in deciding whether to approve the assignment of a licence that is a factor to which the Government will give due weight.
Secondly, as I have already suggested, our decision on Wytch Farm should be looked at not in isolation but in the context of the corporation's activities as a whole, and particularly its involvement in oil production. I have made it clear that it is the Government's view that there is no justification for BGC being involved in the development of oilfields on the scale which it presently is. For that reason, we raised with the corporation the possibility that is would group together some or all of its oil assets, offshore and onshore, into a new company in which the private sector could have been offered a majority holding. This company could have become a new and exciting British force in the development of our oil resources. A scheme was devised whereby 60 per cent. of the share capital of the Gas Council (Exploration Limited)—the corporation subsidiary which holds the oil interests—has been sold to the public, with the corporation retaining the remaining minority interest and continuing to manage the interests on behalf of the new public/private sector partnership.
We felt that this scheme was attractive, but we were not wedded to it in detail. The policy objectives which I have outlined are very clear, and if BGC had felt able to make alternative suggestions which met those objectives, we would certainly have been prepared to consider them. Unfortunately, however, the corporation has so far neither come up with its own scheme nor felt able to develop the

plan which I have just outlined. This is a matter for regret. Even those such as the hon. Lady who are opposed to the sale of Wytch Farm may feel that the corporation's attitude to forming a subsidiary with its oil interests in it, into which private capital could have been attracted on a greater scale, has been over-negative. To have created a subsidiary with all the oil interests of the BGC in it would have enabled the Government to meet their objective of making a contribution towards the PSBR. That would have been a contribution not just from the proceeds of the sale but also from the savings on the future capital requirements for the future development of the corporation's oilfields.
What is clear is that the Government must now set the framework within which BGC should operate. We have therefore decided, having had this plan not accepted by the BGC, to press ahead with action on the Wytch Farm licence interest, which is a small onshore oilfield. This is entirely consistent with the Government's general policies and my right hon. Friend is, as I have said, satisfied that such a move will not impede British Gas in the proper discharge of its duties. The Government are still considering the question of BGC's other oil assets. This is a more complicated question than Wytch Farm, where there is only one partner. In its other oil interests BGC has a minority stake with a number of partners which are not necessarily the same in each case.
I have said that the proceeds of the sale of Wytch Farm will go to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. No doubt some people will make the point that the amount realised by the sale will be small in relation to the PSBR. But it is our intention that this money should count towards the overall target for the disposal of public sector assets announced in the White Paper. That programme—£500 million in 1981–82—is significant. When taken as a whole, that sum is important. The proceeds from the disposal of oil assets or Wytch Farm within that total are obviously important too. It would be imprudent to speculate—the hon. Lady would not expect me to do so—on what their exact size would be, since they will be the result of commercial negotations, but it will clearly be a fairly large sum, and it will be a significant element, as I say, within the overall proceeds of such disposals.
There is no reason to suppose, as some have suggested, that the BGC will be unable to realise a good price for its share in the licence. The price achieved will be the result of commercial negotiations conducted by the corporation, and will depend on the BGC's effectiveness in these negotiations. But I may tell the hon. Lady—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seventeen minutes to Three o'clock am.